Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why take vitamin and mineral supplements? Learn and Follow Simple Steps

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
john4321 - 25 Jul 2006 16:52 GMT
It goes with no saying that the greatest source of nutrients comes from
a well balanced diet. Majority however don't get recommended
nutrition from diet alone. That's why we should take vitamins. Learn
more about individual vitamins and their benefits.

http://www.shopzero.com/us/health/2006/07/25/why-take-vitamin-and-mineral-supple
ments-learn-and-follow-simple-steps/

Vitamins Minerals Supplements

Why take vitamin and mineral supplements? Supplements may help healthy
people for a number of reasons. They can help prevent vitamin and
mineral deficiencies when the diet is not adequate to provide all
necessary nutrients. They can also provide amounts of nutrients larger
than the diet can provide. Larger amounts of some nutrients may help to
protect against future disease. Many of these nutrients will be briefly
discussed here. However, for more information, refer to individual
nutrient articles.

People may consume diets that are deficient in one or more nutrients
for a variety of reasons. The typical Western diet often supplies less
than adequate amounts of several essential vitamins and minerals.1
Recent nutrition surveys in the U.S. have found large numbers of people
consume too little calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, and, possibly,
copper and manganese.2 3

Weight-loss, pure vegetarian, macrobiotic, and several other diets can
also place some people at risk of deficiencies that vary with the type
of diet. Certain groups of people are at especially high risk of
dietary deficiencies. Studies have found that elderly people living in
their own homes, often have dietary deficiencies of vitamin A and
vitamin E, calcium, and zinc,4 and occasionally of vitamin D, vitamin
B1, and vitamin B2.5 Premenopausal women have been found often to
consume low amounts of calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C.6

Learn More About Vitamins Minerals Supplements...

http://www.shopzero.com/us/health/2006/07/25/why-take-vitamin-and-mineral-supple
ments-learn-and-follow-simple-steps/

PeterB - 25 Jul 2006 17:57 GMT
> It goes with no saying that the greatest source of nutrients comes from
> a well balanced diet. Majority however don't get recommended
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Learn More About Vitamins Minerals Supplements...

There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
newsgroups.   Links should be informational only.  We try to hold our
resident pharma bloggers to the same standard.  

PeterB
Mark Probert - 25 Jul 2006 23:41 GMT
> There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
> associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
> newsgroups.   Links should be informational only.  We try to hold our
> resident pharma bloggers to the same standard.  

Do post a URL of any message where a FactBasedMedicine advocate posted
such a blatant sales site.

You cannot.
Jan Drew - 26 Jul 2006 06:38 GMT
>> There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
>> associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You cannot.

Try reading comprehension 101.
PeterB - 26 Jul 2006 14:08 GMT
> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You cannot.

Your promotional efforts aren't provided in links, Markey.  And for
good reason.  That would completely uncover your ties to industry.
Instead, you interject those drug-assisted  beliefs of yours into the
text of your comments, right up front.  It still amounts to a marketing
effort, and you are doing it every day.   You do believe in chemo,
vaccine, and Vioxx, do you not?  Go ahead, don't be shy.  

PeterB
David Wright - 28 Jul 2006 03:49 GMT
>> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
>> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>effort, and you are doing it every day.   You do believe in chemo,
>vaccine, and Vioxx, do you not?  Go ahead, don't be shy.  

Chemo, vaccine, and Vioxx all do what they purport to do.  Whether
they do it well enough to offset the downside, that's the question.

OK, I've never had chemo.  But I've had vaccines, and I've used Vioxx
(for a couple of weeks).  I can't say definitely that the vaccines
"worked", but I've never gotten a disease for which I've been
vaccinated, and the Vioxx was definitely an effective painkiller -- I
really wasn't expecting much from it.  I was most surprised.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
                                -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
PeterB - 28 Jul 2006 14:44 GMT
> >> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
> >> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Chemo, vaccine, and Vioxx all do what they purport to do.  Whether
> they do it well enough to offset the downside, that's the question.

That's part of the question.  The drug makers have failed to properly
test these dangerous chemicals for either efficacy or safety, so we
don't actually know what they are doing beyond their immediate
pharmacology.  Many years after the fact, we discover the truth and
either recall a drug, slap some skull and bones over it, or change the
demographic we prescribe it for.   Yes, chemo *appears* to be a trigger
in remission for a small number of cancers, however observational
studies are not validation of a link, just an association.

> OK, I've never had chemo.  But I've had vaccines, and I've used Vioxx
> (for a couple of weeks).  I can't say definitely that the vaccines
> "worked", but I've never gotten a disease for which I've been
> vaccinated, and the Vioxx was definitely an effective painkiller -- I
> really wasn't expecting much from it.  I was most surprised.

I was suprised when my dietary changes cured me of chronic sinusitus,
HBP, and PVCs.  The medications I was taking didn't do it.  I haven't
had a prescription in many years, and my health continues to be
perfect.  Of course, using happy stories to build claims for evidence
based medicine is quackery if those claims are packaged and sold as
scientifically proven, which means the drug makers have been far more
guilty of this than the supplement makers.  Nutrients, at least, are an
evolutionary adaptation in human health.  There is also far more
independent study supporting such effects as compared to studies of
drug safety, or even drug efficacy, hence the evidence threshold for
pharmaceuticals is necessarily higher.  

PeterB
David Wright - 30 Jul 2006 20:48 GMT
>> >> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
>> >> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>don't actually know what they are doing beyond their immediate
>pharmacology.  

Ah, yes, your favorite whine, "no proper testing."  Of course, "proper
testing" under your requirements would be so fantastically expensive
that it would never be done.  Then you wouldn't have to spend time
complaining about any prescription drugs, because there wouldn't be
any.  I don't see that an an improvement to the situation.

>Many years after the fact, we discover the truth and
>either recall a drug, slap some skull and bones over it, or change the
>demographic we prescribe it for.   Yes, chemo *appears* to be a trigger
>in remission for a small number of cancers, however observational
>studies are not validation of a link, just an association.

Someday, you'll have to explain what "validation" would mean on your
planet.

It's only through such statistics that we know that smoking causes
lung cancer or that seat belts save lives.  Perhaps you could
entertain us now by explaining how the evidence for seat belts or
against smoking is not up to your rigorous standards.

>> OK, I've never had chemo.  But I've had vaccines, and I've used Vioxx
>> (for a couple of weeks).  I can't say definitely that the vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>scientifically proven, which means the drug makers have been far more
>guilty of this than the supplement makers.

Depends on the makers.  There are any number of "supplements" that
claim to cure everything from halitosis to cancer, all in one handy
little pill.  I've yet to see a pharmaceutical product that claims
such a dog's breakfast of capabilities.

>Nutrients, at least, are an evolutionary adaptation in human health.

I don't think "adaptation" is the appropriate word here.  And when you
start megadosing supplements in quantities far in excess of anything
you could get from your diet, you're still drugging yourself.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
                                -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Mark Probert - 25 Jul 2006 23:40 GMT
> It goes with no saying that the greatest source of nutrients comes from
> a well balanced diet.

You should have quit while you were ahead.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.