Most people on here are their own scientists - they experiment with nutrients and supplements, and using their own diligence and the views of others, come to their own conclusions. Now, this is probably the way to go because scientific research is so conservative, and I’m wondering why.
For example, look at Fish Oil research - as far as I’m aware you can count the studies showing reductions in fat mass on one finger. Why don’t researchers push the boat out and whack a huge dose down and see what happens…and it’s the same for most nutrients!
Is it all due to vested interested and funding, and do all the researchers with balls ‘jump ship’ because they know the score?
[quote]edvizard wrote:
Most people on here are their own scientists - they experiment with nutrients and supplements, and using their own diligence and the views of others, come to their own conclusions. Now, this is probably the way to go because scientific research is so conservative, and I’m wondering why.
For example, look at Fish Oil research - as far as I’m aware you can count the studies showing reductions in fat mass on one finger. Why don’t researchers push the boat out and whack a huge dose down and see what happens…and it’s the same for most nutrients!
Is it all due to vested interested and funding, and do all the researchers with balls ‘jump ship’ because they know the score?
[/quote]
because that would mean that there is one solution that works for everyone. there is not. that is why research does not back things up straight out. research is done to prop up ones idea. in the food and drug market (supps are included here) it is commodity products of poor nutritional value or new medications which need to be ‘proven’ which will have studies to make them look good. good food and supps will never have a proper study behind them where the subjects are closely followed because it is impossible to have free living animals such as humans subject to the tight controls necessary for the study to be valid.
feeding is a behavior. and trying to modify human behavior by appealing to scientific evidence is useless. people for the most part fall back on old behaviors when things go to shit. and this is really the problem, you don’t eat calories, or even protein, carbs, fat, vitamins or minerals for that matter, you eat food which contains those things. if your food doesn’t have them and you try to megadose with supplemental, it doesn’t work the same, most likely due to the fact that there are many other micronutrients you are deficient in. you can take all the vitamin c you want, if there is not enough vitE, Se, and other minerals which work in the antioxidant pathways, it will mean dick all.
as for research to show that eating a variety of animal and plant foods available before farming is the most healthy way, it pretty much exists, but it doesn’t allow you to sell crap that you have invented since then (like 80% of foods sources today). such research has no economic or political value and thus you will not see much of it.
[quote]ubl0 wrote:
edvizard wrote:
Most people on here are their own scientists - they experiment with nutrients and supplements, and using their own diligence and the views of others, come to their own conclusions. Now, this is probably the way to go because scientific research is so conservative, and I’m wondering why.
For example, look at Fish Oil research - as far as I’m aware you can count the studies showing reductions in fat mass on one finger. Why don’t researchers push the boat out and whack a huge dose down and see what happens…and it’s the same for most nutrients!
Is it all due to vested interested and funding, and do all the researchers with balls ‘jump ship’ because they know the score?
because that would mean that there is one solution that works for everyone. there is not. that is why research does not back things up straight out. research is done to prop up ones idea. in the food and drug market (supps are included here) it is commodity products of poor nutritional value or new medications which need to be ‘proven’ which will have studies to make them look good. good food and supps will never have a proper study behind them where the subjects are closely followed because it is impossible to have free living animals such as humans subject to the tight controls necessary for the study to be valid.
feeding is a behavior. and trying to modify human behavior by appealing to scientific evidence is useless. people for the most part fall back on old behaviors when things go to shit. and this is really the problem, you don’t eat calories, or even protein, carbs, fat, vitamins or minerals for that matter, you eat food which contains those things. if your food doesn’t have them and you try to megadose with supplemental, it doesn’t work the same, most likely due to the fact that there are many other micronutrients you are deficient in. you can take all the vitamin c you want, if there is not enough vitE, Se, and other minerals which work in the antioxidant pathways, it will mean dick all.
as for research to show that eating a variety of animal and plant foods available before farming is the most healthy way, it pretty much exists, but it doesn’t allow you to sell crap that you have invented since then (like 80% of foods sources today). such research has no economic or political value and thus you will not see much of it.
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]edvizard wrote:
Most people on here are their own scientists - they experiment with nutrients and supplements, and using their own diligence and the views of others, come to their own conclusions. Now, this is probably the way to go because scientific research is so conservative, and I’m wondering why.
For example, look at Fish Oil research - as far as I’m aware you can count the studies showing reductions in fat mass on one finger. Why don’t researchers push the boat out and whack a huge dose down and see what happens…and it’s the same for most nutrients!
Is it all due to vested interested and funding, and do all the researchers with balls ‘jump ship’ because they know the score?
[/quote]
Actually, the reason why supraphysiological dosing protocols aren’t seen as often as you (or we) would like can often be attributed to the IRB approval process - every study has to be approved by an ethics committee, which is largely science, but equally legal (i.e. major universities, like major corporations, like to avoid lawsuits).
To assume its some masterplan by researchers, some plot, basic ignorance, or something economic is giving many of the cases far too much credit. - chris
[quote]edvizard wrote:
Most people on here are their own scientists - they experiment with nutrients and supplements, and using their own diligence and the views of others, come to their own conclusions. Now, this is probably the way to go because scientific research is so conservative, and I’m wondering why.
For example, look at Fish Oil research - as far as I’m aware you can count the studies showing reductions in fat mass on one finger. Why don’t researchers push the boat out and whack a huge dose down and see what happens…and it’s the same for most nutrients!
Is it all due to vested interested and funding, and do all the researchers with balls ‘jump ship’ because they know the score?
[/quote]
Search google scholar - tons of article on fish oil and omega-3’s. There’s lots of grant money for heart disease, diabetes, etc., and plenty of people who want to get published.