I too have wondered if DaBoss could indeed get off supplements. And maybe it comes from Wanting to believe that our instincts have the ability to seek out what we need. Our mental thoughts about what we read including studies, what we think we're going to eat the next meal, and or course what we think constitutes an optimal diet plan all potentially fall outside of the circle of thoughts that we allow ourselves to be guided by. Or another way of saying all this is; there's so much we don't know. And, maybe knowing is not something frozen in time, it may simply evolve with every meal.
It's something a lot of members have implied, suggested, and encouraged doing. I have been there and the outcome wasn't pretty. I was low fat raw paleo when I initially discontinued my supplements and had the relapse. I was later high fat raw paleo, still without supplements, and not doing very well. It was when I later reintroduced the supplements that I really saw improvements. Supplements + RPD have lead to a greater outcome than just supplements alone with a cooked diet. A raw diet alone lead to a worse outcome than just supplements without much attention to diet. I'm not saying that's the norm, we're all different, but there's a reason Dr. Hoffer got great results treating schizophrenics with high dose niacin - because it works. Not because he had yet to discover the wonderful benefits RPD has in treating schizophrenia. RPD is not something that needs to replace my orthomolecular routine, but rather something that needs to be used with it. I've learned that from experience.
I understand a lot of people want to think diet is the cure all in every situation, but that's not the case. Even within this forum we can't reach a general consensus of what a good/optimal diet is. Some eat more plant foods, and only some animal foods. Some eat no salt, some eat a lot of salt. Some eat mainly animal foods. Some take supplements. Some think you should only eat what tastes good. Others go for what's in season. Some eat high fat, some eat less. Everyone argues for their point of view and what's currently working for them. I think it's best we all accept everyone can be doing something different, and still be getting good results. We're all different.
We don't need such evidence: on the contrary, it belongs to the pharmaceutical industry to prove that their products are totally safe because these substances had never been in the environment in such a form until they started to make them.
I'd just like to point out, you started out showing an article as strong evidence not to use supplements. After debunking those studies (the 3 I had access to). You then linked a website that provided zero references when comparing synthetic and natural vitamins, which also happened to be selling "raw" whole food vitamins. Now you're saying we don't need such evidence.
I'd also like to point out that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't manufacture vitamin supplements. In fact, pharmaceutical companies have zero interest in proving supplements efficacy or safety since they're such a competitive force in the market place.
Our animal and hominid ancestors never ate supplements but were nevertheless more healthy than us, civilized people overloaded with synthetic vitamins, supplements and other products of the pharmaceutical / chemical industry.
We're not a whole lot like our animal and hominid ancestors, our environment is also nothing like it was in those times. Humans have likely degraded/devolved in all sorts of ways since those times. The environment today is not what it was then.
Links on the possibility of human devolution -
http://www.naturalnews.com/037942_humans_devolving_brain_function.htmlhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvinThere is a lot of scientific evidence showing that humans are losing the ability to convert nutrients into the forms they need. One example is with MTHFR and having difficulty converting folate into methylfolate which has a number of implications. There are other examples to, like limited glutathione production, and improper neurotransmitter production.
I don't know, Papangue.
There can be many reasons: improperly balanced diet, some specific foodstuff(s) missing in the diet, habituation to the supplement, etc.
I understand that a lot of people on this forum have very dogmatic views toward diet, and that for some they'll never accept that supplements could be helpful. Troll of The Dungeon (TOD) had a similar view, and that's ok.
Realistically speaking, no scientific evidence genuinely exists to show that supplements are anywhere near as good as the real thing.
There are actually quite a few studies showing that certain vitamins can be as good as the real thing, and that certain vitamins can provide real world benefits when applied properly.
Articles showing SOME vitamins to be absorbed just as well from supplements
Article comparing synthetic to natural vitamins -
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/vitCform.html"Natural vs. synthetic ascorbic acid
Natural and synthetic L-ascorbic acid are chemically identical, and there are no known differences in their biological activity. The possibility that the bioavailability of L-ascorbic acid from natural sources might differ from that of synthetic ascorbic acid was investigated in at least two human studies, and no clinically significant differences were observed. A study of 12 males (6 smokers and 6 nonsmokers) found the bioavailability of synthetic ascorbic acid (powder administered in water) to be slightly superior to that of orange juice, based on blood levels of ascorbic acid, and not different based on ascorbic acid in leukocytes (white blood cells) (1). A study in 68 male nonsmokers found that ascorbic acid consumed in cooked broccoli, orange juice, orange slices, and as synthetic ascorbic acid tablets are equally bioavailable, as measured by plasma ascorbic acid levels (2, 3)."
Articles showing megadosing to have benefits
Article on niacin's ability to improve cholesterol profiles -
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/niacin/"High cholesterol and cardiovascular disease
Pharmacologic doses of niacin, but not nicotinamide, have been known to reduce serum cholesterol since 1955 (54). Today, niacin is commonly prescribed with other lipid-lowering medications. However, one randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial examined the effect of niacin acid therapy, alone, on outcomes of cardiovascular disease. Specifically, the Coronary Drug Project (CDP) followed over 8,000 men with a previous myocardial infarction (heart attack) for six years (55). Compared to the placebo group, patients who took 3 grams of niacin daily experienced an average 10% reduction in total blood cholesterol, a 26% decrease in triglycerides, a 27% reduction in recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction, and a 26% reduction in cerebrovascular events (stroke and transient ischemic attacks). Although niacin therapy did not decrease total deaths or deaths from cardiovascular disease during the six-year study period, post-trial follow up nine years later revealed a 10% reduction in total deaths with niacin treatment. Four out of five major cardiovascular outcome trials found niacin in combination with other therapies to be of statistically significant benefit in men and women (56). Niacin therapy markedly increases HDL-cholesterol levels, decreases serum Lp(a) (lipoprotein-a) concentrations, and shifts small, dense LDL particles to large, buoyant LDL particles. All of these changes in the blood lipid profile are considered cardioprotective."
Japanese study using mega doses of Vitamin K2 to treat osteoporosis -
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminK/"In Japan, intervention trials in hemodialysis patients and osteoporotic women using very high pharmacologic doses (45 mg/day) of menatetrenone (MK-4) have reported significant reductions in the rate of bone loss (33, 34). MK-4 is not found in significant amounts in the diet, but it can be synthesized in small amounts by humans from phylloquinone. A recent meta-analysis of seven Japanese randomized controlled trials associated menatetrenone-4 supplementation with increased BMD and reduced fracture incidence (35), but this meta-analysis did not include data from an unpublished study that reported no effect on fracture risk (36). Nevertheless, the meta-analysis reported that MK-4 supplementation lowered risk for vertebral fractures by 60%, hip fractures by 77%, and nonvertebral fractures by 81%; all associations were statistically significant. Six of the individual trials employed 45 mg of menatetrenone daily, while one trial used 15 mg of menatetrenone daily (35). The 45 mg/day dose of menatetrenone was also used in a more recent 3-year placebo-controlled intervention trial in 325 postmenopausal women. This study found that supplemental menatetrenone improved measures of bone strength compared to placebo (37). The doses used in most of the cited studies are about 500 times higher than the AI for vitamin K. Some experts are not sure whether the effects of such high doses of MK-4 represent a true vitamin K effect. "
Article confirming there are differences between SOME synthetic and natural vitamins -
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n03.shtmlThe link shows that Vitamin C is the same, but there are some vitamins that have exceptions. Like magnesium and Vitamin E. There are other exceptions which I've mentioned, like folic acid/folate.
I'd like to point out that all of those links have the studies they base their information on referenced, and they ALL have studies done.
Topic: Stop taking synthetic vitamins and supplements! (Read 21861 times)