[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2013, 01:24 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 12:50 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So why take them? Because we're trying to correct "intra cellular" deficiencies, in other words, we're deficient inside our cells, (not in the bloodstream.) Our cell walls, made up mainly of lipids, have been hardened by the consumption of hydrogenated fats over the years. This makes them less permeable to nutrients. Hence the benefit of putting high doses of nutrients into the bloodstream; tt means that through osmosis the water soluble vitamins get through the hardened cell walls and into our cells. This is why people so often get a boost when they take high doses of vitamins... They feel better because their intra cellular deficiencies are corrected.

There is absoluely no evidence that there are such things as "intra cellular" deficiencies that aren't evinced by serum concentrations of nutrients. This is just an auxiliary ad hoc hypothesis that proponents of "orthomollecular medicine" contrived to shield their main hypothesis from falsification. In response to the claims of practitioners of "orthomollecular medicine", data was produced which demonstrated an absence of claimed nutrient deficiencies. So in response to the falsification of the hypothesis that all major diseases are due to nutritional deficiences, the notion of nutrient deficiency was redefined such that it became--for all practical purposes--unfalsifable. This is standard pseudoscienific practice.

Quote:The recommended daily allowances of so many things are therefore insufficient for optimal health because of the damage we've done to our cell walls.

Again, there is no evidence for this claim.

"There is absoluely no evidence that there are such things as "intra cellular" deficiencies that aren't evinced by serum concentrations of nutrients."

TOTALLY INCORRECT. I actually think it's unethical that you post such nonsense. You're not qualified to make such claims and anyone gullible enough to believe you may be compromising their health. It's a well known fact that serum zinc and serum magnesium levels, for example, aren't good indicators of total body stores. You can therefore have zinc and magnesium serum levels in the normal range, but still be significantly deficient. Once again, you just don't know how much you don't know. Empty vessels make the most noise.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
03-11-2013, 01:28 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 01:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  TOTALLY INCORRECT. I actually think it's unethical that you post such nonsense. You're not qualified to make such claims and anyone gullible enough to believe you may be compromising their health. It's a well known fact that serum zinc and serum magnesium levels, for example, aren't good indicators of total body stores. You can therefore have zinc and magnesium serum levels in the normal range, but still be significantly deficient. Once again, you just don't know how much you don't know. Empty vessels make the most noise.

So post the evidence and I will retract what I posted.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 01:28 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 01:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  TOTALLY INCORRECT. I actually think it's unethical that you post such nonsense. You're not qualified to make such claims and anyone gullible enough to believe you may be compromising their health. It's a well known fact that serum zinc and serum magnesium levels, for example, aren't good indicators of total body stores. You can therefore have zinc and magnesium serum levels in the normal range, but still be significantly deficient. Once again, you just don't know how much you don't know. Empty vessels make the most noise.

So post the evidence and I will retract what I posted.

Sure... Here are the first two articles I came across on my Google search...

1. From http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesi...fessional/

"Assessing magnesium status is difficult because most magnesium is inside cells or in bone [3]. The most commonly used and readily available method for assessing magnesium status is measurement of serum magnesium concentration, even though serum levels have little correlation with total body magnesium levels or concentrations in specific tissues [6]. Other methods for assessing magnesium status include measuring magnesium concentrations in erythrocytes, saliva, and urine; measuring ionized magnesium concentrations in blood, plasma, or serum; and conducting a magnesium-loading (or "tolerance") test. No single method is considered satisfactory [7]. Some experts [4] but not others [3] consider the tolerance test (in which urinary magnesium is measured after parenteral infusion of a dose of magnesium) to be the best method to assess magnesium status in adults. To comprehensively evaluate magnesium status, both laboratory tests and a clinical assessment might be required [6]."

2. From http://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/zinc.htm

"Zinc depletion in humans results in reduced endogenous zinc loss and increased efficiency of intestinal zinc absorption. While plasma zinc is only 1% of the body's total, its concentration is tightly regulated and is generally not affected by mild deficiency. Situations of stress, acute trauma and infection can lead to lower plasma zinc. Mild deficiency can result in impaired growth velocity, suboptimal pregnancy outcomes and impaired immune responses. Severe deficiency can result not only in growth impairment but also alopecia, diarrhoea, delayed sexual development and impotency, eye and skin lesions and impaired appetite.

Assessment of requirements is based on estimates of the minimal amount of absorbed zinc necessary to match total daily excretion of endogenous zinc (FNB:IOM 2001). Estimates are made using a factorial approach that involves calculation of both intestinal and non-intestinal losses (via the kidney, skin, semen and menstruation). Although urinary zinc losses decrease markedly with severe deficiency (Baer & King 1984), across a dietary intake range of 4-25 mg/day, urinary zinc (and non-intestinal losses in general) appears to be largely independent of dietary intake. Intestinal losses, however, correlate strongly to absorbed zinc.

To determine the dietary zinc requirement for a given age/gender group, it is necessary to define the relationship between absorption and intestinal losses and adjust by a constant for the non-intestinal losses in order to calculate the minimum quantity of absorbed zinc necessary to offset total endogenous losses. The factorial calculations used are based on metabolic/tracer studies in which participants are fed diets from which the bioavailability of zinc is likely to be representative of typical diets in Australia and New Zealand."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 03:29 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(02-11-2013 11:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(02-11-2013 11:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You either need to man up or back down.

So what you are proposing here is that the RDA/RDI is garbage merely because some general practitioner that graduated from probably Australia's worst medical school says so.

In the words of yourself
(30-10-2013 10:11 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is a just an appeal to authority. What you lack is evidence for your claims...

Chippy, you have made a bold statement, you have offered "medical" advise which has been contradictory to that of our good Doctor.
You have stated the level of evidence required, so I am demanding you to man up.
Making an appeal to RDA/RDI is pointless, this does not address the issue of how the RDA of vitamins is sufficient for all cases of depression.
The Recommended Daily Allowance is for normal people, in normal situations, it does not address particular states of illness.

Provide the evidence backing your claim.



(02-11-2013 11:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...but on the population level it is a valid measure of how much of each what nutrient humans need.
In the context of this thread we are talking about sufferers of depression, not a generalised "normal" case.

You are not a doctor and yet you are offering medical advise. This is very dangerous, there is a reason why people need to be licensed medical practitioners, this is not something a person can pretend to do.

(02-11-2013 11:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The onus is on anyone that is advocating doses that are an order of magnitude higher than the RDA on a consistent basis to provide the evidence that this such a practice is efficacious and safe.
You have made a claim. Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA. Therefore the onus is on you to backup your claim.
Man up or back off!


(02-11-2013 11:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Fulton has provided neither. Not only has Fulton provided neither but there is positive evidence that continued overdsoing of certain nutrients may be harmful.
Mark did not make a claim that there are "double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials" in support of his advice. I'm sure "doctoring" is as much an art as it is a science. Humans do not know everything about everything. A doctor is not limited to offering advise or prescriptions based only on "double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials".
You would know this if you were a qualified and licensed doctor. But it seems you have read some journals LOL.
(30-10-2013 10:11 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I have likely read more journal papers on the neurobiology of depression than you have.
And now you are handing out "medical" advice to the unwary. This is a very dangerous practice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
03-11-2013, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 05:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
We should all be interested in the very important topic of zinc deficiency.

It's quite difficult to quantify zinc total body levels. The easiest and best method we have in the real world is to do the "zinc taste test," however that has its limitations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22784341

If you do the zinc taste test and pass, you're probably okay. My experience in general practice is that most Australian adults fail the zinc taste test and I therefore treat them for zinc deficiency. A careful history usually reveals subtle symptoms of deficiency, although these can admittedly be non-specific.

I don't usually bother with zinc tablets because they're not as well absorbed as zinc solution.

If any casual readers have never considered the possibility that they may be zinc deficient... just google the topic and ask yourself the question. You can save yourself an awful lot of illness, both subtle and overt, by being aware of zinc deficiency, and treating it if it's there.

And, by the way, the piss weak amount of zinc in a multivitamin is better than nothing, but it really doesn't cut the mustard.

PS... My next book is not gonna be about Christianity. I'm gonna pick a topic that I know something about before I start writing LOL. I'm gonna write about nutritional deficiencies.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 05:51 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 03:29 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Provide the evidence backing your claim.

The burden of evidence always falls on the claimant. If I contend that apple cider vingear cures bowel cancer then it is me that has to present the evidence. No one is obligated to present me evidence that cider vinegar doesn't cure bowel cancer.

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

There is no evidence that people with MDD need more than the RDA of any nutrient. Anyone claiming otherwise bears the burden of proof.

I can generate an infinite number of arbitrary hypotheses which I can then try and justify with reference to the alleged specialness of the object of study. How about red-haired, transexual smokers? The RDA is for "normal people" not red-haired, transexual smokers so I conjecture that red-haired, transexual smokers need twice as much biotin as "normal people". Now go and find me a study which says that red-haired, transexual smokers don't need more than the RDA of biotin.

There is no evidence that those with MDD need above the RDA of any nutrient AND there is no evidence that those with MDD have their symptoms reduced by mega-doses of any nutrient.

Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about.

The burden of evidence always falls on the claimant.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:41 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 12:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This thread was amusing at first, but now it is just tiring.

Kinda like you. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-11-2013, 05:49 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 05:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This thread was amusing at first, but now it is just tiring.

Kinda like you. Tongue

That reads two ways:

I kind of like you.
Kind of like you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:49 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(02-11-2013 10:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-11-2013 10:19 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Okay, just to point out something to the audience: reasoning with chipster doesn't work. It's gonna be a stalemate. Might as well leave him/her with their own delusions of grandeure alone. It's the only way this will end.

This shit reminds me of "You tore out my Barbie's hair 20-odd years ago!!!".

Seriously, chipster can't be reasoned with.

I thought I might come to like him if he wasn't always such a prick. But he's always such a prick so fuck it, I give up. ... My bad.

So you're letting your +2 of him stand? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:56 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 05:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  So you're letting your +2 of him stand? Consider

Whatever makes you feel powerful...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: