Gyroscopic Investing

Does this call into question anything published in the "Permanent Supplement Regime"?

Just wondering.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ASTER.html

This isn't the first study I've read about showing these kinds of results. Personally, I quit taking most supplements a while ago and now I try to meet all my nutritional needs from plain old food.

ns3 wrote: Does this call into question anything published in the "Permanent Supplement Regime"?

Just wondering.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ASTER.html

This isn't is the first study I've read about showing these kinds of results. Personally, I quit taking most supplements a while ago and now I try to meet all my nutritional needs from plain old food.

I'm with you on supplement abandonment.  My physician, who is a walking medical encyclopedia on studies, says they are basically worthless and we should just eat a balanced diet, in moderation.  Besides, the money we save will allow for a nice funeral. 

I trust my physician with the rest of my health situation; to the best of my knowledge, he has never steered me wrong in many, many years and is not a "money grabber".  He is one of the few "honest" professionals that I have been blessed with.  So, why should I not believe him re. his supplement advice?

... Mountaineer

Get as many nutrients as possible from food. 

Antioxidants as supplements in general have lost their luster.  Mitochondrial anti-oxidants are another story and may still be worth taking.  There are not many  currently available with lipoic acid and recently available mito Q the only two. 

Mitochondria generate lots of free radicals in the process of working, but the free radicals do not serve any purpose in mitochondria unlike in other parts of the cells in which free radicals may serve purposes:

At high concentrations, free radicals and radical-derived, nonradical reactive species are hazardous for living organisms and damage all major cellular constituents. At moderate concentrations, however, nitric oxide (NO), superoxide anion, and related reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important role as regulatory mediators in signaling processes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11773609

I don't know if it counts as a "supplement" but I find that taking pro-biotic pills really does help me get over a stomach illness very quickly. But then again, I seem to have a very sensitive digestive system.

Pointedstick wrote: I don't know if it counts as a "supplement" but I find that taking pro-biotic pills really does help me get over a stomach illness very quickly. But then again, I seem to have a very sensitive digestive system.

Could be your diet. I had IBS until I eliminated a bunch or irritating stuff from my diet. Now my BMs are a thing of beauty

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I don't know if it counts as a "supplement" but I find that taking pro-biotic pills really does help me get over a stomach illness very quickly. But then again, I seem to have a very sensitive digestive system.

Could be your diet. I had IBS until I eliminated a bunch or irritating stuff from my diet. Now my BMs are a thing of beauty

Could be, but I'm more inclined to say it's just my body. I've had a sensitive stomach since I was a kid, and my mom was a health food nut. I think I eat pretty well.

doodle wrote: Could be your diet. I had IBS until I eliminated a bunch or irritating stuff from my diet. Now my BMs are a thing of beauty

Whoa there partner!  That is an image I could have done do without. 

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote: I don't know if it counts as a "supplement" but I find that taking pro-biotic pills really does help me get over a stomach illness very quickly. But then again, I seem to have a very sensitive digestive system.

PS,

I don't believe that all supplements are worthless, and probiotics can be very helpful.  Also if you have not tried it, you might try taking the potato starch mentioned previously on this forum. 

Most supplements are indeed of questionable value, especially things like antioxidants that are little more than fads.  Vitamin excess can lead to illness too (especially the fat-soluble vitamins A, E, D, K).

However, that said:  I think we can't get all the nutrients we need from foods, especially if you buy from the giant agribusinesses, due to soil nutrient depletion.  I try to buy from local farms as much as possible for this reason, but it doesn't help that much.

How do I know?  I've found that the state of my fingernails/cuticles are a very good indicator of whether I need to remember to take a multivitamin.  Within a day or so, the problem clears up.  Amazing.

WiseOne wrote: How do I know?  I've found that the state of my fingernails/cuticles are a very good indicator of whether I need to remember to take a multivitamin.  Within a day or so, the problem clears up.  Amazing.

Huh. Could you elaborate on this?

WiseOne wrote: Most supplements are indeed of questionable value, especially things like antioxidants that are little more than fads.  Vitamin excess can lead to illness too (especially the fat-soluble vitamins A, E, D, K).

However, that said:  I think we can't get all the nutrients we need from foods, especially if you buy from the giant agribusinesses, due to soil nutrient depletion.  I try to buy from local farms as much as possible for this reason, but it doesn't help that much.

How do I know?  I've found that the state of my fingernails/cuticles are a very good indicator of whether I need to remember to take a multivitamin.  Within a day or so, the problem clears up.  Amazing.

Permanent cuticle regimen?

OK so it sounded weird on the internet...

To elaborate as requested (sorry to ruin anyone's lunch).  I get peeling skin and hangnails when I forget to take vitamins.  When I get back on the wagon and take them again, these lesions all disappear within about 1-2 days.  Even a conscious effort at the healthiest eating that is physically possible doesn't have the same effect, and also doesn't prevent the problem from popping up again. 

From which I conclude that a) we are all probably living on the edge of vitamin deficiencies, and b) Trader Joe's multivitamins contain what they're supposed to.  And I'm probably a bit healthier than most when it comes to food - no fast food, minimal candy, no soda, leafy green vegetables on a regular basis etc.

ns3 wrote: This isn't the first study I've read about showing these kinds of results. Personally, I quit taking most supplements a while ago and now I try to meet all my nutritional needs from plain old food.

It has to do with hormetic dosing.  Plant-based antioxidants are not actually antioxidants per se, they're toxins that cause endogenous antioxidant production to increase to deal with the toxins.  So if you take too much of these kind of "antioxidant toxins" and you get kicked out of the hormetic zone, it may be harmful by suppressing too much free radical signaling in the body (ironically, more free radicals also induces more exogenous antioxidant production).  Unfortunately, we really don't have the technology yet to monitor for individual optimal hormetic doses.  Now whether or not we actually need these "antioxidant toxins" from vegetables/fruits in the first place remains to be seen.  I think there are better (safer) ways to go.  What veggies/fruits do provide besides fiber is exosome RNA that are literally incorporated into human cells; everything else is marketing fiction.

Anyway, as with everything in life it seems, the key is moderation, but moderation is not (or no longer?) eating real food because real food is nutritionally devoid as WiseOne found out.  If you visualize the overall hormetic zone as a U-curve, then real food without supplementing would place you on the extreme left end.  Maybe it was possible before irradiation, fertilizer, pesticides, trans-fats, pasteurized milk, antibiotics, statins, etc. to get optimal nutrition from real food; now its a fantasy that anyone follows at their own peril.

MachineGhost wrote: If you visualize the overall hormetic zone as a U-curve, then real food without supplementing would place you on the extreme left end.

1. How do you know that your supplementation of glutathione precursors does not put you "over the hump" and too far to the right on the inverted U shaped curve  for amount of glutathione?

2. Endogenous antioxidants include not just glutathione, but catalase, SOD and perhaps one or two I'm forgetting.  If you are willing to share, are you taking precursors of these as well?  You can paste this question/your answer into the supplement thread if you think more appropriate.

MachineGhost wrote: Now whether or not we actually need these "antioxidant toxins" from vegetables/fruits in the first place remains to be seen.  I think there are better (safer) ways to go.  What veggies/fruits do provide besides fiber is exosome RNA that are literally incorporated into human cells; everything else is marketing fiction.

This sounds a lot like the debate about whether or not to hold gold in your portfolio. Are you saying that vegetables and fruits are barbarous relics?

ns3 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Now whether or not we actually need these "antioxidant toxins" from vegetables/fruits in the first place remains to be seen.  I think there are better (safer) ways to go.  What veggies/fruits do provide besides fiber is exosome RNA that are literally incorporated into human cells; everything else is marketing fiction.

This sounds a lot like the debate about whether or not to hold gold in your portfolio. Are you saying that vegetables and fruits are barbarous relics?

Look at it simply.  It is extremely unlikely eating fruits and veggies is going to be harmful and may very well be helpful. (data suggests it is).  Our view of the body/suplements is incomplete/changing.  You are much more likely to do something not in your best interests with supps (because we don't have complete understanding) then food (NB they are still supps and it is not like taking pharmaceuticals).  So why not e.g. eat blueberries than take supplemental Pterostilbene ?  Also if you eat berries you got lots of  compounds, not just Pterostilbene.

The above comments apply to fruits and veggies for general health/preventative purposes.  Supplements have higher dose if you need to treat something.

Benko wrote: 1. How do you know that your supplementation of glutathione precursors does not put you "over the hump" and too far to the right on the inverted U shaped curve  for amount of glutathione?

2. Endogenous antioxidants include not just glutathione, but catalase, SOD and perhaps one or two I'm forgetting.  If you are willing to share, are you taking precursors of these as well?  You can paste this question/your answer into the supplement thread if you think more appropriate.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg96895

ns3 wrote: This sounds a lot like the debate about whether or not to hold gold in your portfolio. Are you saying that vegetables and fruits are barbarous relics?

Keyne's "barberous relic" comment was about the gold standard, not gold per se.  So I would agree that vegetables and fruits are barberous relics when it comes to providing vitamins and in our depleted modern times, minerals.

MachineGhost wrote: Keyne's "barberous relic" comment was about the gold standard, not gold per se.  So I would agree that vegetables and fruits are barberous relics when it comes to providing vitamins and in our depleted modern times, minerals.

I didn't even know that Keynes was the original source of the quote. I thought it was Warren Buffet. So what do I know?

So, just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that we should not eat fruits and vegetables but take supplements instead because they are safer?

Even WiseOne was proud of eating her green leafy vegetables.

ns3 wrote: So, just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that we should not eat fruits and vegetables but take supplements instead because they are safer?

I'm saying don't eat fruits and vegetables specifically for vitamns and minerals; eat them for the other health-promoting ingredients (i.e. phytochemicals, exosomal RNA, fiber, etc.)  If you haven't read The Perfect Health Diet thread, you may want to do so.

MachineGhost wrote: Plant-based antioxidants are not actually antioxidants per se, they're toxins that cause endogenous antioxidant production to increase to deal with the toxins.

Where did you get this information?  There are thousands of antioxidants in plants.  Where did you read that they're "not antioxidants, but toxins?"

Plants need to produce lots of antioxidant chemicals, because they are exposed to potentially damaging sunlight all day, for one thing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, [citation needed].