4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWell, 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.