Another "Nutritionist" Strikes again 🤨

[okie]

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/an...ion=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.

[WillBrink]

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.

[okie]

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.

[chuckman]

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.

[WillBrink]

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 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.

[georgeib]

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?

[okie]

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 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.

[WillBrink]

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-what...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-t...-to-the-big-d/

[okie]

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.

[georgeib]

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-what...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-t...-to-the-big-d/

Thanks, bro.