Hi Harrison. I'm not sure about that "most". A revolution is afoot in our understanding of how most common "non-essential" supplements (i.e., things other than the classic micronutrients) affect the body. It may be that any benefit is not because of the "good" properties of them (that they are antioxidants for ex.) but because of the "bad" (hormetic) properties. Most of us exercise, practice some form of restricted eating, etc. These practices, too, are likely beneficial because of their hormetic effects. Push hormesis too far, and one gets a negative outcome. This is my concern about these supplements. Another thing, to the extent that they have "good" properties, such as antioxidant properties, they may interfere with the benefits of exercise, and perhaps other hormetic practices. I'm sure you're aware of recent studies showing antioxidants taken after exercise eliminates some of the bennies.Harrison wrote:I don't know that the supplements I take are having a benefit, but in most cases it won't hurt (except your wallet).
I'm inclined to eliminate nearly all supplements, but I feel too brainwashed, or lazy or something. I have my routine and I just stick to it. I really should research this more carefully. But I have cut way back. I open up the capsules and just take small amounts of most of these things, partly reasoning like Theresa does about fruit.
The Life Extension Foundation paid for a study conducted by Stephen Spindler of a few supplements combined (to mirror what most humans, though till then almost no lab rodents) consume. The results: not simply that they had no effect, but the supplements shortened the lives of the animals.
Well, the guidelines are pretty clear: "Disagree with ideas, NOT people. [...] A polite and respectful tone is a MUST." Do you have reason to believe that the ideas presented in the website Hep pointed to are incorrect? Can you site them? By the way, otherwise, I agree with your post completely! Nice and balanced!circular wrote: [...] rather than continue what I see as stuffing their egos with self-promoting quackery websites. (Uh oh, that may have verged on being poor conduct for the forum?)
About Gundry: I think he's in the good guy category. Quack has a meaning with two "senses": 1) someone who willfully misleads to make money, and 2) someone who is offering harmful or worthless treaments. I see no evidence that #1 applies to him. As to #2:
I called his office, got a receptionist, said I was involved in three nonprofits, could easily find willing subjects who wouldn't need to be paid, that I could do a lot of the legwork for an RCT, etc. The receptionist said they'd get back to me. That was a year ago.
"I'm busy helping patients" is the typical response here. "ell, if you're unwilling to conduct science according to the standards by which science should be conducted, you do not, in fact, know that you're helping your patients. Period.