4 ms·

>The evidence does not support that claim What claim? >No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B" There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberate

>The evidence does not support that claim What claim? >No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B" There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberately posting complete nonsense. >In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not And in the studies that found no such correlation to begin with? Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that. >it's arrogant to dismiss this them as being functionally equivalent No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins, but you want him to worry about what form of vitamin D he uses based on absolutely no evidence that it matters at all.

wamatt 14y ago
>"No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins " Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist. >Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that. Another misrepresentation. I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. [1] Also there is no pretending going on, simply advocating skepticism and that it's an extremely complex topic with ongoing studies often refuting "obviousness" of a prior generation of thought. I haven't even started on the role the microbiome plays in our health. The fact that there are 10x more non-human cells (100 trillion cells) in our bodies should be pause for concern and a little humbleness. We literally carry around thousands of different strands of bacteria and are only now in this decade starting to map the genetic material to figure out new advances and how these interact with the food we ingest and their systemic effects. [2][3][4] [1] http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Known/dp/1118065727 http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Know... [2] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-microbiome/x/2042790?website_name=ubiome http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-mic... [3] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-your-gut--7/x/2042790?website_name=americangut http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-you... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >My argument is that it's simply not enough An argument that you did not support, as I said. >I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.
  - wamatt 14y ago
    >And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true. Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insignificant consideration. It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency. Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.
      - wamatt 14y ago
        The author himself shows a little more humility: "You’re exactly right. This is a risk, an experiment. " -rob [1]. I find it incredible that you will not concede any significant difference between D3 and D2 or between K1 and K2 groups. When the facts show the opposite. [2] Have you actually read the book on K2 and the evidence that it reduces arterial calcification? You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies and because of your preconceived notion that this diet is a perfect and "very complete" and "100% completely and totally covering all vitamins" (your words) and therefore any counterclaims means <insert strawman attack>. I like this Rob fellow. I'm a huge supporter of ground up approaches, but this is simply not a black and white issue, and no amount of bullying from your quarter is going to change that. [1] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments [2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.ht...

wamatt 14y ago

>"No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins " Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist. >Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that. Another misrepresentation. I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. [1] Also there is no pretending going on, simply advocating skepticism and that it's an extremely complex topic with ongoing studies often refuting "obviousness" of a prior generation of thought. I haven't even started on the role the microbiome plays in our health. The fact that there are 10x more non-human cells (100 trillion cells) in our bodies should be pause for concern and a little humbleness. We literally carry around thousands of different strands of bacteria and are only now in this decade starting to map the genetic material to figure out new advances and how these interact with the food we ingest and their systemic effects. [2][3][4] [1] http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Known/dp/1118065727 http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Know... [2] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-microbiome/x/2042790?website_name=ubiome http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-mic... [3] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-your-gut--7/x/2042790?website_name=americangut http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-you... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project

papsosouid 14y ago
>My argument is that it's simply not enough An argument that you did not support, as I said. >I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.
- wamatt 14y ago
  >And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true. Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insignificant consideration. It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency. Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.
    - wamatt 14y ago
      The author himself shows a little more humility: "You’re exactly right. This is a risk, an experiment. " -rob [1]. I find it incredible that you will not concede any significant difference between D3 and D2 or between K1 and K2 groups. When the facts show the opposite. [2] Have you actually read the book on K2 and the evidence that it reduces arterial calcification? You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies and because of your preconceived notion that this diet is a perfect and "very complete" and "100% completely and totally covering all vitamins" (your words) and therefore any counterclaims means <insert strawman attack>. I like this Rob fellow. I'm a huge supporter of ground up approaches, but this is simply not a black and white issue, and no amount of bullying from your quarter is going to change that. [1] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments [2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.ht...