3 ms·
That said, I'm not sure why this would be better than just taking nitric oxide One might do well to start with the assumption that "taking XYZ orally" is n
by JohnBooty 4y ago
That said, I'm not sure why this would be better
than just taking nitric oxide
One might do well to start with the assumption that "taking XYZ orally" is not as effective as producing it naturally.
The digestive system involves a pit of acid and a diverse, poorly-understood, and variable biome. It is an extremely fraught and indirect way to introduce substances into the body. Obviously many things can be introduced this way, but the list of those that can't is probably longer than the list of things that can.
- iostream24 4y agoNot to mention that one of the premises of the article was that vitamin d levels were a marker, not some singular responsible agent.
- dsizzle 4y agoThe conclusion that vitamin D levels are an effect not a cause came from exploring the mechanisms. And yes, it may turn out that NO similarly is a marker. It's ironic that the author didn't consider that getting sunlight may similarly be the side effect of the true cause of the stated benefits (being active?).
- lr4444lr 4y agoIt may be, but NO itself is also very much a vasodilator, and used therapeutically for that.
- dsizzle 4y agoWell, I never said "orally." If it's beneficial to get NO via sunlight on your skin, it doesn't seem crazy that it might work via some lotion. Even considering oral supplements, one might also take a precursor if the molecule itself isn't stable in the stomach. It's true there may be some important difference between sunlight-induced NO generation and whatever other supplement/injection/lotion/etc, but my point here is that the right approach is to focus on the mechanism, and avoid the naturalistic fallacy.
- robertlagrant 4y agoSurely you'd need to smear sunlight lotion on your skin if you want to use the existing the dermal route?