[quote=sofistek][quote=ao]What does "reference research extensively" mean? If they truly reference extensively, they wouldn’t make those claims. They reference a handful of cherry picked, poorly done studies.[/quote]But you said you’d never read those books. Have you just skimmed through them or something? By reference research extensively, I mean the books are littered with such references.
[quote=ao]Theoretically, there should be no need for supplements, in an ideal world.[/quote]It doesn’t need to be an ideal world. Humans need certain nutrition to live and they have always gotten it from natural foods, until recently. They can get it from natural foods again though, in some cases, supplementation may be necessary for a while.
[quote=ao]But I guess you’re healthy so you don’t have to worry about it anyway.[/quote]Not so. Yes, I’m reasonably healthy, though a long way from perfect. I abused my body for 50-odd years with all sorts of foods that are essentially toxic (though mildly). I think that’s had an impact and I’ve recently changed my diet, as much as I can, to eat more natural foods. So far, there are noticeable impacts, none of them bad, though I think I’ll have to keep it up for a year to make that judgement.
[/quote]
In reviewing the bibliography of Deep Nutrition, one of the books you are citing, she has 397 references. Some are simply from "opinion" books and articles, some are about genetics, some are about anthropology, some are about exercise, some are about body types, some are about general health, some are about general nutrition, and some are about supplements. Many of the ones about supplements are the standard cherry picked references of poorly designed, poorly executed, faulty, distorted, or pharmaceutically influenced studies of the anti-supplement establishment. The books I’m discussing have THOUSANDS of peer reviewed references about nutritional supplementation. They overwhelm the book you cite in their information, accuracy, and thoroughness. For Pete’s sake, Deep Nutrition is a book where the author cites the toughness of the appearance of Geronimo as an example of his good nutrition!!! Did you ever read such nonsense in your life!!! I can show her dozens of tough looking thugs in Detroit whose nutrition amounts to slurping from a toxic waste dump.
When you’re talking about natural foods, are you talking about the natural foods that for thousands and thousands of years allowed people to have scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, rickets, etc., to have lowered immune system health where they caught Bubonic plague and Spanish influenza, to slowly die off from malnutrition, etc? Natural foods are excellent and preferred but one has to have intuitive, tacit, and/or obtained knowledge about what one is eating, where it comes from, when and how to harvest it, how to prepare it, how much of it is safe to eat, what to combine it with, etc. And I’ve given you reasons why, for most people, they’re simply not enough in the modern world but you selectively chose to ignore that information.
I am curious as to why you think that if you or your parents weren’t knowledgeable enough to eat and care for your body correctly in the past, you suddenly, on the basis of reading a couple of books, have the expertise and authority to be so sure about what you are saying?
We’ve had discussions in the past about such things as financial and investment issues and I was stunned at some of the poor choices you made, given that you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Unfortunately, you seem to be as mistaken in your knowledge and understanding of the full scope of nutrition as you were about money issues. If you derive pleasure from stubbornly clinging to opinions and beliefs that you’ve adopted despite their erroneous nature, that’s your choice and I don’t want to deprive you of that but I’m personally not interested in carrying this discussion any further on my part since I think the cause is fruitless.
