4 ms·

Do you believe in eschewing certain foods and favoring other foods because of their health benefits? I don't see it as a huge leap in logic to believe that cert

Do you believe in eschewing certain foods and favoring other foods because of their health benefits? I don't see it as a huge leap in logic to believe that certain supplements - properly prepared, packaged, and delivered into the body - can confer similar health benefits.

michaelbuckbee 15y ago
The "eating foods, mostly plants, not too much" is a Michael Pollan line. One of Pollan's many points is that there is quite a bit of difficulty in separating out the good stuff from the bad stuff in foods due to chemical interactions. His general reasoning is along the lines of "There are x thousand different chemical compounds in an orange, it's very difficult to say, well it's the Vitamin C that's the important one." (scurvy notwithstanding) A good example of something like that is B12 and Iron Deficiency. You can be ingesting a good amount of Iron supplements but not have your actual Iron levels increase much if you lack B12. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/anaemiab12.htm http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/anaemiab12.htm That's not to say that there aren't some pretty clear wins (Vitamin D comes to mind) from taking supplements, just that the actual benefits are often less clear than some of the literature would state.
Travis 15y ago
I disagree. Outside of a few specific situations (folic acid for pregnant women, etc.), most first world people satisfy their nutritional requirements. Micronutrients aren't a "if a little is good, a lot is better" situation. Once you meet your daily requirement, you're just passing most of what you take. Further, of all the science done on CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicines), only a couple of studies have shown a positive impact. I don't doubt Kurzweil is a smart guy. However, there are plenty of smart people who have had theories like this. Eg., Linus Pauling and Vitamin C megadose theory. (see wiki for more info). It may not seem like there's a stretch. But your perception of the logical continuum doesn't really matter. Most supplements are nothing more than snake oil. (Again, assuming you have an otherwise balanced diet). Also, you have a fallacy -- eschewing certain foods is removing potentially harmful nutrients from your diet. Why would it logically follow that adding something would necessarily confer a health benefit?
- michael_michael 15y ago
  I never said removing something from your diet is equivalent to adding something else. Nor did I propose "if a little is good, a lot is better". I did say this: If the consumption of a particular food can be shown to have a net positive impact on one's health and longevity, and the properties that generate that positive impact can be distilled and consumed, it behooves us to do so.
  - Travis 15y ago
    Well, you said, "Do you believe in eschewing certain foods...because of their health benefits?" Then went on to state how it wasn't a huge leap to go from that to health benefits. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency (irrespective of the CAM/supplement issue). The evidence I have seen overwhelmingly states that taking supplements has little to no measurable effect in people with a sufficient diet. The reason that I wouldn't add it to my diet is the same reason that I don't take oxygen supplements -- as long as you generally have enough oxygen, there's just not a whole lot of evidence that you need MORE. So, youre right -- chances are that there's not reason to NOT take them. But there's not really a reason to take supplements, unless you've identified yourself in an at-risk population. But those groups are few and far between compared to the number of people who take nutritional supplements. Then again, I'd rather save my money than buy the modern equivalent of snake oil tonics.

michaelbuckbee 15y ago

The "eating foods, mostly plants, not too much" is a Michael Pollan line. One of Pollan's many points is that there is quite a bit of difficulty in separating out the good stuff from the bad stuff in foods due to chemical interactions. His general reasoning is along the lines of "There are x thousand different chemical compounds in an orange, it's very difficult to say, well it's the Vitamin C that's the important one." (scurvy notwithstanding) A good example of something like that is B12 and Iron Deficiency. You can be ingesting a good amount of Iron supplements but not have your actual Iron levels increase much if you lack B12. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/anaemiab12.htm http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/anaemiab12.htm That's not to say that there aren't some pretty clear wins (Vitamin D comes to mind) from taking supplements, just that the actual benefits are often less clear than some of the literature would state.

Travis 15y ago

I disagree. Outside of a few specific situations (folic acid for pregnant women, etc.), most first world people satisfy their nutritional requirements. Micronutrients aren't a "if a little is good, a lot is better" situation. Once you meet your daily requirement, you're just passing most of what you take. Further, of all the science done on CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicines), only a couple of studies have shown a positive impact. I don't doubt Kurzweil is a smart guy. However, there are plenty of smart people who have had theories like this. Eg., Linus Pauling and Vitamin C megadose theory. (see wiki for more info). It may not seem like there's a stretch. But your perception of the logical continuum doesn't really matter. Most supplements are nothing more than snake oil. (Again, assuming you have an otherwise balanced diet). Also, you have a fallacy -- eschewing certain foods is removing potentially harmful nutrients from your diet. Why would it logically follow that adding something would necessarily confer a health benefit?

michael_michael 15y ago
I never said removing something from your diet is equivalent to adding something else. Nor did I propose "if a little is good, a lot is better". I did say this: If the consumption of a particular food can be shown to have a net positive impact on one's health and longevity, and the properties that generate that positive impact can be distilled and consumed, it behooves us to do so.
- Travis 15y ago
  Well, you said, "Do you believe in eschewing certain foods...because of their health benefits?" Then went on to state how it wasn't a huge leap to go from that to health benefits. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency (irrespective of the CAM/supplement issue). The evidence I have seen overwhelmingly states that taking supplements has little to no measurable effect in people with a sufficient diet. The reason that I wouldn't add it to my diet is the same reason that I don't take oxygen supplements -- as long as you generally have enough oxygen, there's just not a whole lot of evidence that you need MORE. So, youre right -- chances are that there's not reason to NOT take them. But there's not really a reason to take supplements, unless you've identified yourself in an at-risk population. But those groups are few and far between compared to the number of people who take nutritional supplements. Then again, I'd rather save my money than buy the modern equivalent of snake oil tonics.