Seriously -- these kinds of studies are ok as exploratory work suggestive of new hypotheses, but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.
Exactly. Even more worthless is anecdotal evidence of shorter lifespan in famous nutritionists, you listed.
I'll explain with my experience: When young, I thought my immunity to recover from disease invincible. Supplements and diet (beyond ethical considerations) therefore of not much use. But with a walking-disability from PAD and nothing more to lose at later age, I gave it a try and - long story short - it worked even for remission of a number of successive incurable chronic diseases.
In my case, it is clear. It prevented for sure bodily-disability, and probably by some time earlier demise, usual with so many degenerative diseases. It might help me get to 80 instead of 70 years of age. If not something unexpected else happens.
With the listed nutritionists, the same self-medication con-founder and original bad health has always to be considered, too.
Therefore, well-designed and expensive controlled randomized trials would be necessary to be certain. Where each age group or precondition, etc,, would be matched with someone equal, without the intervention in question.
... but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.
Exactly. But how is taking your belief in your products, even without any non-telling observational studies, not even worse than just bad science?
In my case only, I've got unshakable evidence: even remissions of chronic diseases are possible with nutrition and life-style changes. Since I experienced firsthand the healing power of such high dose nutrient-intake. I'm regretting being so inconsiderate at a younger age. Where I now must hypothesize, that much lower doses would have prevented the worse.
I know, however enough, who ate a very bad diet, smoked, drunk, never supplemented and still reached 100 years of age. Therefore, I don't tell anyone what to do, but only offer my story particular to myself for consideration. There are just too many different biochemical individualities, with too different genetic susceptibilities, medical histories or present conditions, deficiencies or overload, varying toxic exposures, different metabolism, etc. - for any certainty.
And here we both differ: I offer my anecdote to consider in similar circumstances. You push your product merely on faith in a thereby assumed longer life. With full conflict of interest. But not even an anecdote.
These observational studies are almost completely worthless.
These observational studies are so completely worthless too, because they are not done with comprehensiveness and individualized high doses. Simply nonexistent that way. There is for example absolutely not 1 study on omega-3, where participants took in average 4 g/d of EPA/DHA constituents for 16 years as I successfully did (along with all the other nutrients and comprehensive life-style changes).
But as totally worthless like your mere belief of an 80% life extension effect of your products due to similiar worthless animal studies, with clear conflict of interests? - Let's agree to disagree.
Edited by pamojja, 14 November 2024 - 01:55 PM.
. That was the young age when my serous chronic degenerative diseases started. Soon you might have the evidence that your approach might be as - or even more effective - for remissions as mine.
