View Full Version : Another "Nutritionist" Strikes again 🤨
I put nutritionist in quotes as we don't know if that's someone who was self described as such or a licensed nutritionist. While it's more difficult to overdose on vitamin D as some would claim, this person was put on 150,000 UI per day!
So the poor man - who had an extensive medical history - experienced side effects of the crazy vite D dose. This is via MedCram (https://www.youtube.com/c/Medcram), which is a highly recommended YT channel. It should be noted there are protocols that call for doses that high to get people's levels of 25OHD up (which can only be determined by blood work...), but they are for short periods, followed by much lower doses to maintain the new levels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGDvmVhrVQw
For those who want in depth info on vite D, see: https://brinkzone.com/vitamin-d-whats-the-optimal-level-and-how-to-achieve-it/
People have all lost their minds. If people would just use a little common sense and listen to their bodies like our grandparents did they would live as long. Don't eat stuff from a lab (including supplements), eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full, drink when you're thirsty, and sleep when you're tired. I can't believe all these crazies who think humans have been doing it wrong for millennia, and that the answer is loading our bodies up with food and supplements that are mad science experiments and basically doing the exact opposite of listening to their bodies.
People have all lost their minds. If people would just use a little common sense and listen to their bodies like our grandparents did they would live as long. Don't eat stuff from a lab (including supplements), eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full, drink when you're thirsty, and sleep when you're tired. I can't believe all these crazies who think humans have been doing it wrong for millennia, and that the answer is loading our bodies up with food and supplements that are mad science experiments and basically doing the exact opposite of listening to their bodies.
I don't agree and that's not supported by the science. There's no doubt some supplements are beneficial (my web site has 3 decades or so of studies discussing that topic...) and there's some that are a total waste of $. Note the doc in that vid takes and recommends vitamin D.
Agreed in that the basics of good nutrition is not that complex, but making things more difficult and complex than they need to be is what humans excel at I find.
I don't agree and that's not supported by the science. There's no doubt some supplements are beneficial (my web site has 3 decades or so of studies discussing that topic...) and there's some that are a total waste of $. Note the doc in that vid takes and recommends vitamin D.
Agreed in that the basics of good nutrition is not that complex, but making things more difficult and complex than they need to be is what humans excel at I find.
Based on what I've read I think the best case scenario for supplements is that they turn your pee green. All people need is clean food, clean air, and sunshine. Unfortunately there's not much opportunity for medical science to profit from those things.
Based on what I've read I think the best case scenario for supplements is that they turn your pee green. All people need is clean food, clean air, and sunshine. Unfortunately there's not much opportunity for medical science to profit from those things.
Then you are not well read on the primary lit, don't research the topic for a living... This is my lane.
Then you are not well read on the primary lit, don't research the topic for a living... This is my lane.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-vitamin-supplements-are-useless-according-to-new-study-2018-5#:~:text=A%20new%20systematic%20review%20of,the%20risk%20of%20cardiovascular%20disease%2C
I could post a gazillion more articles just like this one, going back decades. I don't know what your background is, but I can promise you that you're up against a whole lot of highly credentialed scientists and large well designed studies going back many years.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2019/04/16/study-finds-no-benefit-for-dietary-supplements/
Here's another one from 2019, and the conclusion is the same as it was back in the 90s. Supplements don't work, healthy eating of real food only way to get nutrients. Like I said, clean food, clean air, and sunshine. Worked for our grandparents, and it will work just as well for us.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-vitamin-supplements-are-useless-according-to-new-study-2018-5#:~:text=A%20new%20systematic%20review%20of,the%20risk%20of%20cardiovascular%20disease%2C
I could post a gazillion more articles just like this one, going back decades. I don't know what your background is, but I can promise you that you're up against a whole lot of highly credentialed scientists and large well designed studies going back many years.
If you think that changes anything, you're even more out of your lane than I thought. No interest on my end in learning you on the issue. There's no lack of posts on this forum and articles on my site if you wanted to actually learn something here, but I suspect you don't. Have a good one.
If you think that changes anything, you're even more out of your lane than I thought. No interest on my end in learning you on the issue. There's no lack of posts on this forum and articles on my site if you wanted to actually learn something here, but I suspect you don't. Have a good one.
I used to be really into this stuff, no need to educate me. I was in the gym everyday in high school and college and worked at a supplement shop pushing the stuff. Finally saw the light. It's ineffective at best, and in many cases harmful. Even the highest quality supplements out there aren't the same molecularly as what's in our food, and aren't handled in the same way by our bodies because they don't come with the same enzymes and microbiomes as the real food they're meant to replace. And that's not even taking malabsorption into account. People eat enough nutrients in most cases, but they can't process them because their guts are too wrecked from all the grains, preservatives, pesticides, and packaging chemicals.
The longitudinal studies tell the whole tale, especially when it comes to the risks associated with supplements. And it's like that NIH article points out, people who take supplements are already likelier to eat healthy, and are still having worse outcomes despite that. Some people would call that a clue.
I used to be really into this stuff, no need to educate me. I was in the gym everyday in high school and college and worked at a supplement shop pushing the stuff. Finally saw the light. It's ineffective at best, and in many cases harmful. Even the highest quality supplements out there aren't the same molecularly as what's in our food, and aren't handled in the same way by our bodies because they don't come with the same enzymes and microbiomes as the real food they're meant to replace. And that's not even taking malabsorption into account. People eat enough nutrients in most cases, but they can't process them because their guts are too wrecked from all the grains, preservatives, pesticides, and packaging chemicals.
The longitudinal studies tell the whole tale, especially when it comes to the risks associated with supplements. And it's like that NIH article points out, people who take supplements are already likelier to eat healthy, and are still having worse outcomes despite that. Some people would call that a clue.
Well that changes everything... A classic case of you don't know what you don't know. Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest.
Please offer your thoughts on this recent paper on the potential impact on NAC and GSH as it applies to covid outcomes so we can all learn from you:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/antioxidants/antioxidants-11-01366/article_deploy/antioxidants-11-01366-v2.pdf?version=1657864153
Well that changes everything... A classic case of you don't know what you don't know and too ignorant to know it. Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest.
Please offer your thoughts on this recent paper on the potential impact on NAC and GSH as it applies to covid so we can all learn from you:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/antioxidants/antioxidants-11-01366/article_deploy/antioxidants-11-01366-v2.pdf?version=1657864153
Yea not reading that, but after glancing at the abstract and conclusions I see zero relevance other than you trying to demonstrate that you too can read fancy articles with big words. Has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. They're merely hypothesizing about the potential benefit of a drug (not even a supplement). And even if it were an actual supplement, there's no study, just speculation, and making a bunch of assumptions in the process. For this to be germane to our little debate here, you would have to find a study saying that glutathione (an actual supplement vs. a drug) reduced oxidative stress in covid patients leading to better outcomes. And to refute my stance you would have to find one that compared supplemental sources to dietary sources (i.e. prove that not only does it work, but that the supplement is superior in some way to dietary sources). And even then we're talking about treating an acute illness, in the elderly nonetheless, vs. the nutritional needs of normal healthy people in general. I'm certainly not going to deny the use of drugs to treat acute illness, but even if the article's assumptions are all correct that's like saying that nitroglycerin is a heart supplement.
Yea not reading that, but after glancing at the abstract and conclusions I see zero relevance other than you trying to demonstrate that you too can read fancy articles with big words. Has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. They're merely hypothesizing about the potential benefit of a drug (not even a supplement). And even if it were an actual supplement, there's no study, just speculation, and making a bunch of assumptions in the process. For this to be germane to our little debate here, you would have to find a study saying that glutathione (an actual supplement vs. a drug) reduced oxidative stress in covid patients leading to better outcomes. And to refute my stance you would have to find one that compared supplemental sources to dietary sources (i.e. prove that not only does it work, but that the supplement is superior in some way to dietary sources). And even then we're talking about treating an acute illness, in the elderly nonetheless, vs. the nutritional needs of normal healthy people in general. I'm certainly not going to deny the use of drugs to treat acute illness, but even if the article's assumptions are all correct that's like saying that nitroglycerin is a heart supplement.
I rest my case. It's interesting to note in the years I have been here I have only had one single person added to my ignore list, and he was banned a long time ago. In the last few months have had add three. Not sure if that's because I have become less patient with idiots or more idiots have joined, or a combo of both. Regardless, I'm done tolerating idiots like you.
I rest my case. It's interesting to note in the years I have been here I have only had one single person added to my ignore list, and he was banned a long time ago. In the last few months have had add three. Not sure if that's because I have become less patient with idiots or more idiots have joined, or a combo of both. Regardless, I'm done tolerating idiots like you.
Dude I have nothing against you (I don't even know you). Nor have I said anything to you to warrant the kind of animosity you continually show me. Quite frankly, I would love nothing more than to be on your ignore list.
Yea not reading that, but after glancing at the abstract and conclusions I see zero relevance other than you trying to demonstrate that you too can read fancy articles with big words. Has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. They're merely hypothesizing about the potential benefit of a drug (not even a supplement). And even if it were an actual supplement, there's no study, just speculation, and making a bunch of assumptions in the process. For this to be germane to our little debate here, you would have to find a study saying that glutathione (an actual supplement vs. a drug) reduced oxidative stress in covid patients leading to better outcomes. And to refute my stance you would have to find one that compared supplemental sources to dietary sources (i.e. prove that not only does it work, but that the supplement is superior in some way to dietary sources). And even then we're talking about treating an acute illness, in the elderly nonetheless, vs. the nutritional needs of normal healthy people in general. I'm certainly not going to deny the use of drugs to treat acute illness, but even if the article's assumptions are all correct that's like saying that nitroglycerin is a heart supplement.
Not sure it is fair to throw the baby out with the bath water; it's not a binary choice that all supplements are good/no supplements are good. There is a good amount of literature that a lot of supplements work as advertised. Sure, some do not; some get covered with good diet; some are harmful.
Not sure it is fair to throw the baby out with the bath water; it's not a binary choice that all supplements are good/no supplements are good. There is a good amount of literature that a lot of supplements work as advertised. Sure, some do not; some get covered with good diet; some are harmful.
He looked into it during high school and read some articles on it, so clearly an expert. Me, published in peer reviewed papers, published in mags all over the world in various languages, invited speaker (often as the only one there without a PhD) at various sci conferences, consultant to various companies, trainer of pro athletes, SWAT teams, et, etc, etc, for the last 30+ years, gets kick back from the derpa derp. Last speaking gig was a few weeks ago at the Harvard Alumni Club (https://www.m4carbine.net/google.php?cx=010536845846440650985%3Aridd3_u3s3i&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=harvard&sa.x=0&sa.y=0) where only alumni can speak, and many in attendance were med pros. Topic was sarcopenia and how to avoid/treat it.
Anyway, I'm not an SME on guns, terminal ballistics, etc, and don't play one on TV, but when it comes this topic, I am in spades. As anyone can see in any of the various threads where I post on this and related topics, more then happy to discuss the topic as it applies to the data and the science, will not tolerate obtuse ignorant wanna be types who don't know what they don't know on the topic, be they hardly passed high school bio or an MD, PhD, MPH, RD.
I know my lane, and one thing I always liked about M4C was the fact others generally did same (which has gotten much worse of late...) and at least showed some level of respect for that and or got set right by the mods when they didn't.
That's another topic that needs its own thread. Glad to hear you're doing well under the circumstances.
Will, I've got a question for you. I've been taking 5000iu of D3 for probably almost a couple of years, along with magnesium to aid absorbency and for its own benefits. In a blood test last week, my D 25-Hydroxy level was only at 34.1, the low end of the scale. Could it be the brand of D3 I was taking is the problem (NatureWise)? I went ahead and ordered the NOW brand hoping it might help. What would you recommend?
He looked into it during high school and read some articles on it, so clearly an expert. Me, published in peer reviewed papers, published in mags all over the world in various languages, invited speaker (often as the only one there without a PhD) at various sci conferences, consultant to various companies, trainer of pro athletes, SWAT teams, et, etc, etc, for the last 30+ years, gets kick back from the derpa derp. Last speaking gig was a few weeks ago at the Harvard Alumni Club (https://www.m4carbine.net/google.php?cx=010536845846440650985%3Aridd3_u3s3i&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=harvard&sa.x=0&sa.y=0) where only alumni can speak, and many in attendance were med pros. Topic was sarcopenia and how to avoid/treat it.
Anyway, I'm not an SME on guns, terminal ballistics, etc, and don't play one on TV, but when it comes this topic, I am in spades. As anyone can see in any of the various threads where I post on this and related topics, more then happy to discuss the topic as it applies to the data and the science, will not tolerate obtuse ignorant wanna be types who don't know what they don't know on the topic, be they hardly passed high school bio or an MD, PhD, MPH, RD.
I know my lane, and one thing I always liked about M4C was the fact others generally did same (which has gotten much worse of late...) and at least showed some level of respect for that and or got set right by the mods when they didn't.
That's another topic that needs its own thread. Glad to hear you're doing well under the circumstances.
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, you can't just railroad people and tell them to ignore decades of settled science. If you don't believe decades of longitudinal studies are valid and that's your informed opinion then you're more than entitled to it. But you don't have the right to tell other people they're wrong for having a different informed opinion and then get all bent out of shape and call them names for not bowing down.
Will, I've got a question for you. I've been taking 5000iu of D3 for probably almost a couple of years, along with magnesium to aid absorbency and for its own benefits. In a blood test last week, my D 25-Hydroxy level was only at 34.1, the low end of the scale. Could it be the brand of D3 I was taking is the problem (NatureWise)? I went ahead and ordered the NOW brand hoping it might help. What would you recommend?
What you have discovered is that even at higher doses for some, still not enough to get you into the optimal zone. People dose responses to D3 can vary widely, which why it's essential to test 25OHD levels as you have. My own dermatologist and pal had to take 20k IU per day to get to the 50-75 mark, much to his surprised as he was convinced 2k was "more than sufficient." He has since changed his tune...Best article on that topic is here:
https://brinkzone.com/vitamin-d-whats-the-optimal-level-and-how-to-achieve-it/
To your Q, probably not the brand, but not impossible, and I only use companies I have had personal biz with, such as Life Extension Foundation, Nutra Bio, and Jarrow. Now should be fine, but I can't personally vouch.
Mg essential for benefits (1) and try taking with a meal that has some fat in it too. Finally, addition of vite K appears a big added benefit to D.
(1) https://brinkzone.com/is-magnesium-the-key-to-the-big-d/
Not sure it is fair to throw the baby out with the bath water; it's not a binary choice that all supplements are good/no supplements are good. There is a good amount of literature that a lot of supplements work as advertised. Sure, some do not; some get covered with good diet; some are harmful.
Absolutely. "Supplement" is a wide definition, and there are even lots of raw foods sold under that umbrella terminology. I use what many would term supplements, but in reality they're just foods. Take something like deer antler for example. It's a traditional medicine that's really just a food source, but since it's not something that's part of the SAD, it gets labeled a supplement. Another example would be different earths and things like shilajit. And all the herbs and spices that get lumped into that category.
What I'm referring to specifically are things like multivitamins that are synthesized or isolated in a lab, and are completely foreign either in molecular structure or the context in which they're consumed. Like even if they're molecularly identical as is the case with some high end food extract type vitamins, they're not being consumed with all the enzymes, fungi, and bacteria that would exist in the whole foods they're extracted from. So it's myopic to assume that swallowing a little green pill would have the same benefit as drinking a glass of freshly squeezed vegetable juice.
That's what the longitudinal studies show, that people who simply eat healthy have better outcomes than people who rely on supplements for their nutrition. People who rely on supplements are however found to eat healthier than average, and yet have slightly worse outcomes than the general population, which suggests the toxicity of many of these lab created/isolated supplements.
What you have discovered is that even at higher doses for some, still not enough to get you into the optimal zone. People dose responses to D3 can vary widely, which why it's essential to test 25OHD levels as you have. My own dermatologist and pal had to take 20k IU per day to get to the 50-75 mark, much to his surprised as he was convinced 2k was "more than sufficient." He has since changed his tune...Best article on that topic is here:
https://brinkzone.com/vitamin-d-whats-the-optimal-level-and-how-to-achieve-it/
To your Q, probably not the brand, but not impossible, and I only use companies I have had personal biz with, such as Life Extension Foundation, Nutra Bio, and Jarrow. Now should be fine, but I can't personally vouch.
Mg essential for benefits (1) and try taking with a meal that has some fat in it too. Finally, addition of vite K appears a big added benefit to D.
(1) https://brinkzone.com/is-magnesium-the-key-to-the-big-d/
Thanks, bro.
Thanks, bro.
Make adjustments, re test in a few months is always best practices. First article posted is the deep dive on the topic.
Make adjustments, re test in a few months is always best practices. First article posted is the deep dive on the topic.
Will do. Just went to 15000iu, added K2 from the wife's stash, doubled up on my fish oil, and washed the whole thing down with some full fat Greek yogurt. We'll see.
Will do. Just went to 15000iu, added K2 from the wife's stash, doubled up on my fish oil, and washed the whole thing down with some full fat Greek yogurt. We'll see.
It takes a while for levels to go up, so give it some time to re test. What's astounding to me is, some do require injections of 100K + IUs for a time to get those levels up, then an oral dose to keep them there. I know a few people that had to go that route to get their levels up to where they should be per chart in the article. Me, 5k IU per day and I'm GTG, and the majority seem to be similar, but there's only on way to actually know. There's genetic differences too it seems as African Americans and Asians seem to have more difficulty with that. The doc mentioned before is Korean.
fedupflyer
07-20-22, 18:33
Will,
Any particular liquid D3 you would recommend?
(Preferably a 10,000 IU dose.)
I had one brand that worked for me but for some reason it is no longer produced.
Will,
Any particular liquid D3 you would recommend?
(Preferably a 10,000 IU dose.)
I had one brand that worked for me but for some reason it is no longer produced.
I don't see any advantage to liquid D3, and caps will be less $. If any of those brands have it, use them, but caps are GTG.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.