I'm not alone in wanting good health, particularly a healthy heart.    Here is what I have been taking daily, tablespoon of flax seed (ground) and  1 tablespoon of chia seed,  handfull of walnuts and fishoil capsules Omega 3.   In addition to this, but not necessisarly for the heart,  B-12 pill, 1000 mcg,  calcium tablet, 600 mg and AREDS 2 for eye health.      Am I overdoing it or is this pretty much what most people take?

Taking a random bunch of "supplements" promoted by quacks isn't going to do anything for your health.  Eat a balanced diet and exercise regularly.  That's all it takes.

 

(Isn't it amazing that the human race has thrived for millennia without eating chia seeds, pills or capsules?)

Add a magnesium tablet -- does wonders for heart rhythm -- but make sure you're not overdosing on it. (check on the web for a calculator to keep an eye on your daily intake of all these things). Another way to get a good supply of magnesium and potassium is a boiled banana before bed -- also helps regulate your sleep (mag and pot help to relax your muscles), which is an important part of staying healthy. Include some quinoa (or millet or barley) in your diet as well.

 

Ignore Oxx -- these things ARE PART of a healthy diet and should not be simply dismissed as quackery. Also, if it makes you happy and helps you to relax, then you've got an additional benefit, and something which many people tend to overlook.

I agree with the balanced diet and exercise.    My diet is ok and I work out 2 hours a days (walking), maintain a healthy weight (145 lb) but I think there is still a place for certain supplements.    

2 hours ago, Dexlowe said:

Ignore Oxx -- these things ARE PART of a healthy diet and should not be simply dismissed as quackery. Also, if it makes you happy and helps you to relax, then you've got an additional benefit, and something which many people tend to overlook.

 

Ignore Oxx and you end up spending a lot of money on things that simply have no scientifically proven benefit as food supplements.

 

A balanced diet will include everything the body needs.  The body is quite amazing in its ability to adapt to an enormous range of diets, from those of the Eskimos in the Arctic to those of tribespeople in equatorial Africa.

 

I'd go as far as to say that there is not a single quality scientific study that demonstrates that any food supplement improves health over a balanced diet.  I'd be interested to be proven wrong. (Scribblings of the like of quack Mercola and quack Oz et al. don't quality as "scientific study".)

I am 64 and I go cycling every morning and when I return I have now substituted lunch with a vitality shake which I have to say has given me great energy and a feeling of being healthy. This is two carrots, three sticks of celery, a banana, the juice from one lemon and 500 mL of orange juice in the blender. And one side-effect I have noticed is my eyesight has dramatically improved because where as before I needed reading glasses for almost everything now I can read some things without

42 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Ignore Oxx and you end up spending a lot of money on things that simply have no scientifically proven benefit as food supplements.

 

A balanced diet will include everything the body needs.  The body is quite amazing in its ability to adapt to an enormous range of diets, from those of the Eskimos in the Arctic to those of tribespeople in equatorial Africa.

 

I'd go as far as to say that there is not a single quality scientific study that demonstrates that any food supplement improves health over a balanced diet.  I'd be interested to be proven wrong. (Scribblings of the like of quack Mercola and quack Oz et al. don't quality as "scientific study".)

 

Totally agree about the quacktors, but the point I was trying to make is that there is nutritional value in the OP's foods - judged right, they can form part of a sensible diet. If a bit more expensive :), but that's an individual matter. Given seasonal factors, having a balanced diet can be a bit of a juggle at times, so if these foods can help, then fine and mild. I see no reason to discourage the OP from these products, other than on the point of cost.

 

Cheers, mate.

33 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Ignore Oxx and you end up spending a lot of money on things that simply have no scientifically proven benefit as food supplements.

 

A balanced diet will include everything the body needs.  The body is quite amazing in its ability to adapt to an enormous range of diets, from those of the Eskimos in the Arctic to those of tribespeople in equatorial Africa.

 

I'd go as far as to say that there is not a single quality scientific study that demonstrates that any food supplement improves health over a balanced diet.  I'd be interested to be proven wrong. (Scribblings of the like of quack Mercola and quack Oz et al. don't quality as "scientific study".)

I'm with you all the way on this one. There is  evidence to show that supplements are more detrimental to health than they are beneficial.  Some have even been linked to increased cases of cancer.

 

For mineral supplements, which essentially means high dosage over a short period, read - Throwing rocks at your liver

 

The trick that suppliers use is to spell out of the benefits of said minerals and vitamins and then say their supplements contain x amount of such. They do not say that their crap will actually bestow such benefits. Why? Because it doesn't

 

And for any of you thinking it's just another Google graduate harping off, it's Grumbleweed BSc, Cert Heath Science, Cert Natural Science

OP, you didn't give your age.

If you are young, good time to consider what to do to keep in good health.

If you are old, good time to consider how to improve health as stuff wears out!

Better late than never!

 

Here are my thoughts.

Use common sense and your own observations along with the scientific studies but make sure that the studies are fair and they have not cherry picked the participants by say exclusion and that their results are believable. Just because it's called a scientific study doesn't make it true!

As has been said, if you don't absorb the supplement, you are wasting your money at best.

 

I would reconsider the calcium.

Years ago a friend gave up dairy but worried that she would not get enough calcium and took a daily supplement.

2 or 3 decades later her heart valves were clogged with calcium, she almost died and needed them to be replaced.

Her life is now far from perfect.

Calcium needs co-factors like Vitamin D3, Vitamin K etc. to direct it into bones not arteries etc.

You need boo-available calcium, ideally from whole food, then you get the necessary co-factors.

 

I would also research into what NOT to consume so that you may enjoy better health.

Reducing Omega 6 and trans fats would be a great start.

Cutting down on sugar (of all types, there are at least 50 different names that are used to hide that sugar is in various, so called - health foods)

I would look into the effects that gluten has on me.

There is a Harvard Medical School study that shows that no human has the necessary enzymes to fully digest gluten.

That depending on the expression of your genes it may affect a particular body part(s).

Every time you eat it, there will be small tears in the gut lining, but hey the body repairs it very quickly when you are young and otherwise healthy.

However, we do this all day, every day and when we are older, we may have a problem like a leaky gut, or impaired cognition etc.

Google for Extinguishing Inflammation with Real Foods and follow this up if you have time.
 

The problem with food though is that it ain't what it used to be!

Industrial farming methods and over use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, GMO etc poison and deplete the soil of the necessary good bacteria.

The food produced often does not have all the necessary vitamins and minerals.

So yes, I agree that some, but vary careful supplementation may help.

As supplements your flax seeds, walnuts and fish oil capsules sound great.

 

Despite what Grumbleweed says,Google is your friend, do your own research.

Here is an example:- http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6101

 

and good luck.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, laislica said:

There is a Harvard Medical School study that shows that no human has the necessary enzymes to fully digest gluten.

That depending on the expression of your genes it may affect a particular body part(s).

Every time you eat it, there will be small tears in the gut lining, but hey the body repairs it very quickly when you are young and otherwise healthy.

However, we do this all day, every day and when we are older, we may have a problem like a leaky gut, or impaired cognition etc.

 

 

 

 

 

To my knowledge the above is false.

 

Please provide a link to this study - an actual link to it, not to a website claiming that there is such a study and that it says this.

 

There is no harm to eating foods that one does not fully digest, quiet the contrary - the body needs to have undigested fiber in its diet. Gluten is a valuable source of fiber, and indeed people with genuine celiac disease (about 1% of populations in the west) who must avoid gluten often have problems due to insufficient fiber as a result.

This kind of question should be addressed to a Doctor. You should have tests to establish if you have deficiencies. And only then consider supplements or medication as advised. This is not me saying you don't need them - I have no idea!

 

Laislica,      Thanks for the reply, I'm 72.

2 hours ago, ChrisKC said:

This kind of question should be addressed to a Doctor. You should have tests to establish if you have deficiencies.

 

Do you think doctors are going to diagnose deficiencies for flax seed, chia seed,  walnuts and fish oil?

 

Any reputable doctor is going to diagnose over exposure to charlatan quacks and their snake oil selling siblings.

Someone I knew for the last quarter century of his life until his death at age ninety-nine ate a modest diet but did indulge in the occasional cream cake.

 

I suppose if he had take the correct supplements he might have made it to the ton.

2 hours ago, applepie16 said:

Someone I knew for the last quarter century of his life until his death at age ninety-nine ate a modest diet but did indulge in the occasional cream cake.

 

I suppose if he had take the correct supplements he might have made it to the ton.

 

The cream cake did him In!!

6 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

To my knowledge the above is false.

 

Please provide a link to this study - an actual link to it, not to a website claiming that there is such a study and that it says this.

 

There is no harm to eating foods that one does not fully digest, quiet the contrary - the body needs to have undigested fiber in its diet. Gluten is a valuable source of fiber, and indeed people with genuine celiac disease (about 1% of populations in the west) who must avoid gluten often have problems due to insufficient fiber as a result.

 

Actually, I made no comment about gluten or undigested fibre other than:

There is a Harvard Medical School study that shows that no human has the necessary enzymes to fully digest gluten.

That depending on the expression of your genes it may affect a particular body part(s).

Every time you eat it, there will be small tears in the gut lining, but hey the body repairs it very quickly when you are young and otherwise healthy.

However, we do this all day, every day and when we are older, we may have a problem like a leaky gut, or impaired cognition etc.

Google for Extinguishing Inflammation with Real Foods and follow this up if you have time.

The link I gave talks about Non Celiac Gluten Sensitivity, not Celiac Disease.

 

Of course I don’t have full access to the  resources such as: DASH Home Harvard Medical School HMS Scholarly Articles.
Even if I did, do I have the necessary scientific background to understand it?
Somehow I don’t think so.
I rely on other, qualified people, who have the correct background to explain them to me in terms that I can understand.

 

The study I referenced is far too difficult for my comprehension, here is a tiny extract:-

In contrast, regulatory T cells (Tregs) play a cardinal role in protecting against autoimmune diseases, inflammation and tissue damage13 through secretion of IL-10 (ref. 14) and other mechanisms. Although differentiation of naïve CD4+ T cells has been considered to be an irreversible process, accumulating evidence suggests that T cells are much more flexible than initially believed with the ability to interchange between helper phenotypes15. For instance, Th17 cells are able to co-produce IFN-γ, initially considered exclusively a Th1 cytokine16,17.

BTW, I think I would need to go on a course to know the structure of "Studies" and to learn how to interpret them.

Is this study the sort of thing you want a link to?
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/11879062

 

Here is a link to an interview where amongst other things, they discuss: Why some still consider leaky gut a “quack diagnosis”
https://chriskresser.com/pioneering-researcher-alessio-fasano-m-d-on-gluten-autoimmunity-leaky-gut/

 

I am also aware of Quackwatch which is run by Stephen Barrett, M.D..
If one studies who supports him – where his money comes from - one may then begin to consider just how reliable his posts are.

Does everyone need to have an axe to grind?

 

Dr. O'Brian explains that the villi in the stomach are protected with a membrane that only allows small molecules to pass into your blood.

The effect of gluten is to make a tear in the membrane which then allows larger  - macro molecules to enter your blood.

That this then sets up an autoimmune attack, inflammation and all that which causes organ cells to be correctly killed bu the immune system.

No problem as our bodies replace the cells. But if we do this all day and every day and then the body can't make enough cells to do a full repair, we have a problem.

He suggest that we exclude certain foods for a short time and see if we feel better or not.

Then reintroduce the foods and see how you feel.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

I've excluded dairy, wheat and booze and am on about my third week.

I can tell you that there were some side effects at first, cold like symptoms, headaches etc. but that was gone in a few days.

Now my food and booze cravings seem less.

My visceral fat is less, my hip pain less and I generally feel better.

Whether this study is quackery or not dosen't bother me as such.

The ideas I got from it are proving to benefit me at the moment.

I was almost a vegetarian so I am eating even more salads and stir fried veggies.

I have some scarring in the macula of one eye and I'd swear that my vision has improved as well.

Not exactly scientific, only anecdotal but bye gum, I'm glad that I have changed my lifestyle again!

I don't even care if it's "The Placebo Effect", I just want better health!

 

IMHO, It’s a matter of balance and credibility and common sense must be used
Big Pharma make mistakes from time to time. Thalidomide to mention just one.
Scientists and even doctors, like everyone else can make mistakes.
Scientific papers – seemingly written in stone – have later been shown to be totally wrong.

It's life.

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

Cherry picking data to get the required result is perhaps the norm for Big Pharme.

http://www.fondazionedibella.org/cms-web/upl/doc/Documenti-inseriti-dal-2-11-2007/Truth About The Drug Companies.pdf

 

Remember how sugar and smoking were not harmful to one’s health?

Let me think now, what was the cigarette that was preferred by Doctors?

Well the 1949 TV commercial said that

 

Dr I’Brian explains that the topic he is discussing is all new so isn’t it reasonable that we discuss it in an open minded way?

Well the 1949 TV commercial said: More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

 

There are those who say the acupuncture is quackery.

I lived for 10 years with a British lady who had trained for three years to become a qualified TCM practitioner.

I saw the results of her treatment on her patients, and on myself as well.

It was amazing. The new patient was given some forms to fill in with many questions.

The idea was to answer the questions quickly, without thinking about the answer.

She wanted the truth rather than what the patient thought the acupuncturist wanted to hear or what might be politically correct or not let themselves down in any way..

Then, during the initial diagnosis interview the acupuncturist would decide if treatment was going to help.

If not she would refer the patient to another type of practitioner, a chiropractor or herbalist or whatever.

 

I have never had such an in-depth from any allopathic Doctor.

In fact, in my early 40's our company nurse spotted that my BP was a little raised and monitored it over three months.

Armed with the graph showing a regular 145/95, she sent me to my Dr.

She took my BP and prescribed 50mg atenalol, come back in 10 days.

OK, so still high, increase to 100mg, come back in 10 days and all good now, bye, bye.

I took them for more than 10 years, then went on a juice diet, lost 25 Kg.

As the weight reduced, so did my BP so I cut the pill in half.

In the end I was on a 5th of a pill and went to see the Dr again.

This time he was a young chap who congratulated me and said stop the pill cos 20mg  is not a therapeutic dose.

I was miffed cos the other Dr never suggested I could fix the problem by changing my lifestyle. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/public/heart/hbp_low.pdf

Well he explained that Dr's have little time for each patient and they get tired of explaining things like that because most patients want the quick result of the pill because they are not prepared to take responsibility for their health.

So armed with that knowledge I started to research (before the internet was invented).

I created a nutrition database using data from the reference library.

Of course Google makes it much easier nowadays.

But, as always, one can't just believe whatever has been written.

 

Maybe like in a court, questions have to be rephrased?

No references to studies, just say that this Dr or person has these stories to tell and it is this person's opinion.

Up to the reader to decide if it's useful or not?

 

Perhaps:

Wow, I just found this interview that really floated my boat.

I have no idea of the truthfulness or validity of what he says, but for what it's worth, if you are inclined, maybe have a look?

I hope it's helpful, in fact I wish it was, but up to you to decide.

I would love to hear your response. Two heads are better than one?

Weblink(s)x.x.x.x.x.x.x

 

Although I am unable to provide you with the direct link that you requested, I hope that you will perhaps cut me some slack because I feel like this:.

The nail that stands up must be hammered flat!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medical advice on TV?????

 

Bot like getting a tooth pulled at the car shop or local deli......please spare me...???????

18 hours ago, Oxx said:

Taking a random bunch of "supplements" promoted by quacks isn't going to do anything for your health.  Eat a balanced diet and exercise regularly.  That's all it takes.

 

(Isn't it amazing that the human race has thrived for millennia without eating chia seeds, pills or capsules?)

 

Yup, evolution and natural selection prepared us perfectly for an average lifespan of about 25 years on a natural diet without supplements (or medical care, for that matter)   Beyond reproductive age, natural selection offered no advantages at all for length or quality of life.

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Yup, evolution and natural selection prepared us perfectly for an average lifespan of about 25 years on a natural diet without supplements (or medical care, for that matter)   Beyond reproductive age, natural selection offered no advantages at all for length or quality of life.

 

Wrong in two respects:

 

(1) Back in 1960 the average lifespan in Norway was 73.6 years.  That was before the fad of nutritional supplements.  That is the sort of figure that evolution and natural selection has prepared us for.  Increased life expectancy over the decades has been primarily because of improvements in public hygiene and (to a lesser extent) advances in medicine.  Further improvements could well increase that figure.

 

(2) Natural selection continues to act after reproductive age.  Individuals provide support for their offspring and other close relatives, improving their fitness (fitness here meaning the ability to pass on their genes).  This increases the probability of the post-reproductive age individual's genes being passed on to future generations.

 

Incidentally, research has shown that people who take vitamin supplements die younger than those who don't.  For example, http://annals.org/aim/article/718049/meta-analysis-high-dosage-vitamin-e-supplementation-may-increase-all

32 minutes ago, Oxx said:

Wrong in two respects:

......

Incidentally, research has shown that people who take vitamin supplements die younger than those who don't.  For example, http://annals.org/aim/article/718049/meta-analysis-high-dosage-vitamin-e-supplementation-may-increase-all

 

Mine is not an argument for or against supplements.  Mine is an argument against the idea that mother nature has prepared human beings for life in a world where natural selection has been bypassed by modern medicine and societal norms and the millennia of the agrarian lifestyle isn't even a distant memory for most of us.

 

I'm a perfect example.  I had horrible asthma as a preschooler.  Modern medicine and society allowed me to outgrow it by the time I was in kindergarten.  Had my parents believed in natural selection, someone else would be typing at this keyboard.  (Well, maybe not, but that's a whole 'nother topic)

 

And to your meta-study, I'd bet that people who use asthma medicine die sooner than those that don't.  But I chalk that up to selection bias, not the deleterious effects of the asthma medicine.  

 

Not that I'm a big believer in supplements, but neither am I a believer in one-size-fits all, or that the science is in on their benefits in a world that's hugely different than the one we evolved into.  I'm pretty sure nature didn't anticipate that we'd be exposed to heavy metals, pesticides and other pollutants of the modern world.

 

Bottom line, I'm in favor of a continued discussion, not putting an end to the discussion based on one opinion on the continuum.

calcium tablet is what makes most people get calcified in the arteries...

 

the ratio of calcium to magnesium in milk is 9 to 1, which would be 2 to 1

 

so no need for extra calcium

 

about the quacks guy ... the soil of our food production is depleted since long... using pesticides to make plants grow = 0 nutrients... the time that you can stay healthy with just eating clean is long over... the pesticide residue on food , in meat, in water (estrogen anyone) is what create cancer in liver & other organs in the long run .... 

 

see more & more obese thais in the street ?  think about fried fatty foods coocked in bad oils ...

 

remember 20-30 years ago when they promoted margarine is being good & butter being bad ?  promoted by whom ? the margarine industry... one molecule away from PLASTIC

 

 

the quacks nowadays are the doctors saying you need surgery, chemical pills,  never to question the real cause, merely threating symtoms, and those are returning customers for sure

 

 

quacks ?  well... take any of your medicine you take every day, read the side effects, it might make most people think twice, but nobody speak about side effects or interactions with 1,2,3,4,5 other chemical drugs you are prescribed ...

 

but hey, as thai people say:   UP TO YOU

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, ChrisKC said:

This kind of question should be addressed to a Doctor. You should have tests to establish if you have deficiencies. And only then consider supplements or medication as advised. This is not me saying you don't need them - I have no idea!

 

 

sadly you are unaware that doctors knows nothing about nutrician, only thing they learn is to write what pill for what ill

 

if they get 1 day about nutrician in the 7 years they take to become a doctor , it will be much

 

 

MD doctors are good for emergency situations and know nothing about chronic diseases

 

 

1 hour ago, Oxx said:

 

Wrong in two respects:

 

(1) Back in 1960 the average lifespan in Norway was 73.6 years.  That was before the fad of nutritional supplements.  That is the sort of figure that evolution and natural selection has prepared us for.  Increased life expectancy over the decades has been primarily because of improvements in public hygiene and (to a lesser extent) advances in medicine.  Further improvements could well increase that figure.

 

(2) Natural selection continues to act after reproductive age.  Individuals provide support for their offspring and other close relatives, improving their fitness (fitness here meaning the ability to pass on their genes).  This increases the probability of the post-reproductive age individual's genes being passed on to future generations.

 

Incidentally, research has shown that people who take vitamin supplements die younger than those who don't.  For example, http://annals.org/aim/article/718049/meta-analysis-high-dosage-vitamin-e-supplementation-may-increase-all

 

 

so what is your point ?

 

is it usefull to know some people get to live 90 - 100 in retirement homes, half blind, in bed all day ? depressed ? on 5 different medications ?

 

quality of life is not more important ?

 

is like saying, you have cancer, and this 100.000$ threatement will make you live 3 months longer, but you will suffer like hell, vomit all the time, hardly able to speak, eat, sleep

 

yes, that is modern medicine

 

the doctor is happy, he can afford a brand new mercedes on your bill

 

I know when people are stuck in their beliefs, they will not change

 

I don't care

 

everybody believes what they want

 

there is this thing called:  educating yourself ... in stead of spending many hours a day here on the forum, you can spend it by reading up ...

 

 

cure for cancer promised for decades ? good business model ... everybody has cancer cells all the time in their body and your immune is fighting it ...

 

MD cancer cure :  kill the immune ... yes.. that will work ... read up and see that  cancer STEM cells cannot be killed by x-ray, chemo

 

you end up killing your immune system, the tumor might shrink just enough that the doctor say: you are cure ... but it comes back after a few years in other places...

 

 

diabetes , no cure ?   come on ... 30 days of organic vegetables all you can eat (enzymes is king) and most type 2 are CURED

 

but that kind of advise bring 0 dollar to the doctor & industry ...

 

 

are you too blind that there are billions & trillions of easy profits to be made on people's health ?

 

you think all the trash junk food that is allowed to be sold laden with chemicals is either for your health or for profit ?????

 

 

 

14 hours ago, laislica said:

I rely on other, qualified people, who have the correct background to explain them to me in terms that I can understand.

 

People whose qualifications you ascertain how exactly? By how many times they have appeared on Dr. Oz, or how many views they have on Facebook?

I've heard about people curing cancer with fruits and vegetables, also things like heart disease and diabetes can be cured with diet (mostly a plant based vegan diet)  

 

I truly believe foods and herbs, diet and lifestyle can be medicine and pharmacy drugs are not healthy for the body unless its really needed.

 

if people just ate the foods we humans were mean't to eat, like all other animals on this planet do, then the use for pharma drugs would reduce.

 

its quite simple really, we are apes, just like our relatives like the chimpanzee and Bonobo, we should be eating lots of fruits and/or vegetables,  but humans have evolved to eat cooked foods like grains, potatoes, beans etc.. also nuts and seeds are great for us. as for meat and fish, humans eat too much of this in this day and age, we don't need too much meat in our diet, so no meat/fish or keep it to a minimum.

no need for dairy, we don't need cow's milk just like we don't need dog milk, giraffe milk, cat milk.. eggs are a chicken's period, keep it to a minimum as very high in cholesterol. 

 

 

 

 

OH how I agree with Tumbleweed and Oxx.

 

Agood balanced diet -0 a variety of colours and a healthy lifestyle is all it takes.

 

some supplements can cause problems when taken in large doses - calcium being one.

 

B12?????????????  why?????????????  it is in most foods and unless your diet is difficient in B12 supplements will NOT make any difference.  Gowever if the parietal cells in your stomach are not working for some reason then you will need B12 - but it will be given by injection - this is one of the most stupid supplements I have ever encountered.  Yes i have met a lot of quacks in my time who peddle such untruths.

 

Google doesn't help either

22 hours ago, laislica said:

 

 

Despite what Grumbleweed says,Google is your friend, do your own research.

Here is an example:- http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6101

 

and good luck.

 

 

 

In your attempt to discredit me and or make yourself look smart, you are embarrassing yourself. The case you link to concerns NAD⁺ and laboratory experiments on mice, specifically its effect on multiple sclerosis. It has no relationship to food supplements, neither in the quality or the way NAD⁺ is administered

 

The effects of NAD⁺ are well documented and this is probably the reason the supplement industry has jumped on the bandwagon. As I already mentioned: manufacturers highlight the benefits of the compound in question. They do not say that their product will bestow these benefits because to do so they would have to provide scientific evidence. - they can't

 

The human digestive system is a very hostile environment, why do you think  insulin is injected? I doubt very much that NAD⁺ or NAD can even make it through the digestive system. Enzymes and co enzymes are synthesized from precursors, which we get from a well balanced diet.

 

Some people are unable to absorb or synthesize certain compounds, which is where medical intervention is required, Medication could be given to facilitate the processes or the necessary compounds could be given intravenously, but whatever the method, this goes way beyond simply swallowing a Harry Potter-esque magic potion

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Wrong in two respects:

 

(1) Back in 1960 the average lifespan in Norway was 73.6 years.  That was before the fad of nutritional supplements.  That is the sort of figure that evolution and natural selection has prepared us for.  Increased life expectancy over the decades has been primarily because of improvements in public hygiene and (to a lesser extent) advances in medicine.  Further improvements could well increase that figure.

 

(2) Natural selection continues to act after reproductive age.  Individuals provide support for their offspring and other close relatives, improving their fitness (fitness here meaning the ability to pass on their genes).  This increases the probability of the post-reproductive age individual's genes being passed on to future generations.

 

Incidentally, research has shown that people who take vitamin supplements die younger than those who don't.  For example, http://annals.org/aim/article/718049/meta-analysis-high-dosage-vitamin-e-supplementation-may-increase-all

 

OK till I read the study:

Limitations:

High-dosage (≥400 IU/d) trials were often small and were performed in patients with chronic diseases. The generalizability of the findings to healthy adults is uncertain. Precise estimation of the threshold at which risk increases is difficult.

 

Please tell me who paid for the study.

This is just what I wad banging on about before, cherry picking participants at the very least, oh and small numbers......

 

I suppose that even I count make "My" selections of studies and abstract the data and come up with the opposite result?

 

There are Lies, D a m n e d lies and statistics and therein lies the problem - who do we believe.

Therefore: I rely on other, qualified people, who have the correct background to explain them to me in terms that I can understand.

 

I agree with Impulse who said: Bottom line, I'm in favor of a continued discussion, not putting an end to the discussion based on one opinion on the continuum.

 

To have discussions with an open mind would be excellent.

I value the opinions of others but only to give me more things to think about and more avenues to follow.

I agree that there is much misinformation out there and it is quite difficult to find a really honest source.

Dr. Mercola wants to sell stuff but on the other hand he provides some great insights into many health topics.

Like magnesium sterate or talcum powder used in the manufacture of supplements.

They make it faster to mix the chems and therefore make a cheaper product to give them the edge to sell more.

How else could we find out about that?

I have had a dialogue with a UK manufacturer on this subject.

Bottom line, they would love to make better quality supplements but that would price them out of the market!

So in fact, are we the consumer, driving the manufacturing procedures to gain an ever reducing price?

Never mind the quality - feel the width he he

Our behaviour teaches others how to treat us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, fstarbkk said:

 

People whose qualifications you ascertain how exactly? By how many times they have appeared on Dr. Oz, or how many views they have on Facebook?

 

 

Actually, I don't watch Dr Oz....

If there is a ground swell of different qualified scientists, Dr's etc saying similar things, then that would lend some credibility.

As I have said, it's very difficult to know who to believe.