3 ms·

Why does it have to be supplementation? Nutrition science is mostly unreliable because it is difficult to study, is very limited and progress is slow. The supp

Why does it have to be supplementation? Nutrition science is mostly unreliable because it is difficult to study, is very limited and progress is slow. The supplementation industry capitalizes on this ill-reported junk science. For many years, vitamin D2 was sold as supplementation. Now it is well-known that D2 is not bioavailable to humans. Similarly, it is well-known now that even D3 is mostly useless without K2. Now, some D3 supplements come with K2. Who knows what we'll find in the future? Even more ridiculous is iron. The iron in spinach is basically rust. It is not bioavailable to humans. Not only that, it induces oxidative stress in humans. Ever heard you need anti-oxidants? You do, if you've been eating spinach or cereal fortified with rust or supplements with such iron. Our body needs a specific organic compound of iron: heme. You can't just swallow a nail and get iron from it. Vitamin A, D, E, K are all available in animal fat, in exactly the forms we can readily absorb. Animal fat has been a crucial part of diet for every human culture forever. There has never been a single exception... until recently when junk science and industry PR started selling seed oil as a "healthy" replacement. As a result, a large portion of population is deficient in these vital nutrients. Seed oil is highly problematic because... it's seed. Not only does it have no nutrients, plants don't want you to eat their seed. That is the one thing plants don't want you to eat, more than anything else. That is why they pack it with the most dangerous toxins they can come up with. Nutrition science is hard but nutrition is easy. Just eat what humans have been eating for thousands of years.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. It’s more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight (although we also know that introduces cancer risk) than eating a whole cow every day. It seems like you’re trying to make the facts fit your preferred narrative re. meat consumption.
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  >I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember. >It seems much more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight Humans have lived in Northen Europe for at least 10,000 years. They didn't take any supplements and there no evidence that shows any vitamin D deficiency in those populations.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    Humans in Northern Europe have adapted to those conditions with very light skin that maximizes sunlight exposure. > And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember. The changing numbers are why I gave such a wide range. Regardless of who you believe, it’s completely impractical to get the vitamin D you need from meat. It’s not even in the right order of magnitude. What is your proposed required daily value of vitamin D? If you’re going to go around claiming it’s possible to get your needed vitamin D from foods, you ought to have done some math to back up this claim.
    - AntiImperialist 6y ago
      The only relevant math I need is that humans have done fine with animal fats for thousands of years. The value I need is what I can get naturally. And BTW, I have dark skin, I live in one of the Northest parts of the world humans live, haven't taken vitamin D supplements in years and my vitamin D levels have been great (upper middle of whatever acceptable range they use) when I got tested several times over the past years. I don't even care anymore. I will continue to eat what humans are supposed to eat and I'll be fine. Even if your numbers are not good, you should not be eating these chemicals in isolation. We don't need nutrients, we need food. Nutrient-nutrient interaction is very difficult to study, but it has been found to be crucial every time they've managed to do it.
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        Perhaps you’re eating some food that has been supplemented with vitamin D. For example, one cup of milk fortified with vitamin D might have 100 UI (as much as six steaks).
        AntiImperialist 6y ago
        I don't drink milk, lactose intolerant.
      - 6y ago

shajznnckfke 6y ago

I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. It’s more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight (although we also know that introduces cancer risk) than eating a whole cow every day. It seems like you’re trying to make the facts fit your preferred narrative re. meat consumption.

AntiImperialist 6y ago
>I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember. >It seems much more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight Humans have lived in Northen Europe for at least 10,000 years. They didn't take any supplements and there no evidence that shows any vitamin D deficiency in those populations.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Humans in Northern Europe have adapted to those conditions with very light skin that maximizes sunlight exposure. > And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember. The changing numbers are why I gave such a wide range. Regardless of who you believe, it’s completely impractical to get the vitamin D you need from meat. It’s not even in the right order of magnitude. What is your proposed required daily value of vitamin D? If you’re going to go around claiming it’s possible to get your needed vitamin D from foods, you ought to have done some math to back up this claim.
  - AntiImperialist 6y ago
    The only relevant math I need is that humans have done fine with animal fats for thousands of years. The value I need is what I can get naturally. And BTW, I have dark skin, I live in one of the Northest parts of the world humans live, haven't taken vitamin D supplements in years and my vitamin D levels have been great (upper middle of whatever acceptable range they use) when I got tested several times over the past years. I don't even care anymore. I will continue to eat what humans are supposed to eat and I'll be fine. Even if your numbers are not good, you should not be eating these chemicals in isolation. We don't need nutrients, we need food. Nutrient-nutrient interaction is very difficult to study, but it has been found to be crucial every time they've managed to do it.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      Perhaps you’re eating some food that has been supplemented with vitamin D. For example, one cup of milk fortified with vitamin D might have 100 UI (as much as six steaks).
      - AntiImperialist 6y ago
        I don't drink milk, lactose intolerant.
    - 6y ago