On Sunday, November 30, 1997 at 9:00:00 AM UTC+1, Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
> <> Terminology
> Tom Matthews wrote:
> : Well we do need a common term which stands for
> : all the things, possibly excepting hormones,
> : which one normally supplements. My preferred
> : term is "nutrient", but I realize that's
> : actually too broad since is includes all foods
> : as well. But then often, foods too are taken in
> : concentrated supplemental pill form. I will try
> : to stick to just using the term "nutrient"
> : unless I specifically mean the defined vitamins.
> "Nutrient" is a good general term (I think it ultimately
> comes from the Latin _nutrire_, to feed, which is, in a
> sense, all we're talking about here), but it's not great,
> since it presupposes that the substances in question
> actually do nourish. Maybe "purported nutrients" or
> something like that would be better. I prefer "substance."
> But I'll know what you mean when you say nutrient.
> <> Miscellaneous.
> [....]
> : > > My view of this
> : > > is that any combination of vitamins which does
> : > > ameliorate some disease process is quite likely (not
> : > > necessarily, but reasonably likely) to be
> : > > beneficial to those which do not have that
> : > > disease process either to prevent them from
> : > > getting that specific disease or for other
> : > > general health purposes.
> :
> :
> : Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
> : > I disagree very strongly with this view, especially if
> you
> : > expand it to include more than just vitamins.
> : >
> : > One obvious
> : > example where this is false is where a disease is caused
> by
> : > a deficiency of a vitamin (most vitamins). Giving
> someone
> : > more than enough B-12 to prevent the B-12 deficiency
> : > associated diseases isn't going to improve their health
> : > beyond the improvement that would come with the
> amelioration
> : > of existing deficiency conditions (if there had been a
> : > deficiency). Thinking otherwise is the classic 1970's
> : > life-extensionist fallacy: less than "normal" is bad,
> : > therefore more than normal is good. It's not true (the
> whole
> : > statement).
> :
> : Well, I understand what you are saying and you
> : are right that in certain cases, more will not
> : be better and in fact may be worse....
> That's not what I'm getting at. I put in the parenthetical
> comment to stress that I'm disagreeing with a particular
> line of reasoning which argues: IF less is bad, THEN more is
> good (more is better than normal; normal =
> "deficiency"-avoidance levels). I believe that more is
> indeed good, very good, in particular cases. Example:
> there's evidence that folic acid far above levels that
> prevent anemia is beneficial. But we don't know if the extra
> folic acid is beneficial in ways that have much to do with
> its RDA-level functioning. It might not be at all. (There
> are many other exs.; vitamin C is also a good case.)
> Does B-12 beyond RDA levels do anything special? Vitamin K?
> Copper? Manganese? Iodine?, etc.
> : ... However,
> : with respect to vitamin deficiency conditions, I
> : believe that you are wrong. It doesn't make
> : sense that the amount necessary to stop the
> : deficiency symptoms will also be the optimal
> : amount to stop various unseen, hard to detect,
> : subclinial physiological or biochemical "weaknesses"
> : which a higher, "optimal" amount would overcome.
> Substances ("nutrients") do _qualitatively_ different things
> at different doses. Claims about zinc are an instance of the
> 1970's life-extensionist fallacy: zinc is needed for proper
> immune function, THEREFORE more zinc gives even BETTER
> immunity. This is wrong (both the full statement, AND the
> idea itself that more than RDA zinc improves immunity, as
> far as research currently shows -- there may be exceptions
> -- the elderly, for ex.).
> Extra zinc, may, under certain conditions, be useful for
> certain disease conditions, but thoughts and experiments
> about this should be -- or, certainly, shouldn't not at all
> be -- decoupled from what we know of its RDA-level role.
> : As for the "classic 1970's life-extension fallacy",
> : it is always easy for those who weren't mature (or
> : even born) at a certain time in the past to look
> : back and see the era in a stereotyped way.
> : However, I believe there were lots of people
> : around then who also did not simply think that
> : more was always better. At least, I know I didn't.
> Absolutely. I'm referring only to what appeared in a lot of
> pop books, and to that which was believed by a lot of people
> in general.
> [....]
> : > >> and 3) justification for the claim of efficacy of the
> : > >> substances in combination.
> :
> : > > I don't understand you again here. You know that
> : > > we will "not" find any such studies in general.
> :
> : > We've run into this problem before, the problem of
> : > understanding what we mean by "justification," or even
> : > "reasons." Justification doesn't require a strictly
> : > empirical approach; indeed, such an approach is
> impossible
> : > (deduction and interpretation are both always required).
> :
> : > I just mean an answer to the question: What are the
> reasons
> : > for thinking that evidence of the efficacy of the
> substances
> : > that comes from studies of their use in isolation (or
> pairs
> : > or other small numbers of them) still operates when all
> : > these substances are used in combination? (You know,
> : > "justify": to make "justus," to make just, right. The
> _quid

> http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/bmdelane/email.htm
> [Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
> Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they
> are not statements of fact.
> "Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
> ** Please do not CC your Usenet articles to me. I'll find
> them.

High dosed lab tested supplement, proven to extend lifespan.

https://www.increaselifespan.net/product/nmn-resveratrol-quercetin-cell-generator/

NMN plus RESVERATROL plus QUERCETIN in a phytosome complex.