[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 12:13 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 11:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ...IDIOTIC NONSENE...

Those with MDD need hobos' dick cheese because there is no paper that says that they don't need hobos' dick cheese.

That is your reasoning and it is fallacious. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

No study has been produced that conclusively demonstrates that those with MDD are metabolically peculiar such that they need supraphysiological doses of any nutrient. In the absence of any such evidence then those with MDD have no special dietetic needs and hence the RDA is sufficient for all their metabolic needs. If you disagree then it is up to you to present evidence of the metabolic condition that causes those with MDD to need supraphysiological doses of any nutrient. Then you must also present evidence that administering supraphysiological doses of one or more of these nutrients relieves the symptoms of MDD. Neither you nor Fulton have provided any such evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 12:26 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 11:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You could educate me by showing the evidence you have that supports your claim

I could educate you by telling you that the burden of proof always rests on the claimant. There is no evidence that those with MDD need more of any nutrient hence there is no good reason to advise them to consume more than the RDA.

Your position is nonsensical. Is there a paper which shows that those with MDD don't need large amounts of donuts? No, and that is justification for advising people with MDD to eat large amounts of donuts?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 12:21 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You could educate me by showing the evidence you have that supports your claim

I could educate you by telling you that the burden of proof always rests on the claimant.
I absolutely agree, so please provide evidence to back up your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 12:28 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 12:21 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I could educate you by telling you that the burden of proof always rests on the claimant.
I absolutely agree, so please provide evidence to back up your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

There is no evidence that those with MDD need more than the RDA of any particular nutrient. No such evidence exists. It is as simple as that. If you believe that such evidence does exist then cite it. The absence of evidence is not a license for wild speculation and it is good grounds to stick to the RDA which hasn't been associated with increased mortality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 01:23 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 12:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 12:28 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I absolutely agree, so please provide evidence to back up your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

There is no evidence that those with MDD need more than the RDA of any particular nutrient. No such evidence exists.
That's fine, you have made your argument and Mark has made his with regards to intake of large quantities of vitamins and how that relates to sufferers of depression.

But I am now interested in your claim.
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

What is the evidence supporting this claim?
Is Chippy invoking psuedoscience and pretending to be a quack himself or does he have something more substantial than what Mark has kindly presented in support of Mark's own claim?

(04-11-2013 12:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It is as simple as that.
Yes, its that simple. Mark was man enough to present his evidence supporting his own claim, now its your turn to support your claim.

Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 01:40 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 01:23 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

Your pee is golden instead of dark yellow or *gasp* green. Also you won't overdose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 01:23 AM)Stevil Wrote:  [That's fine, you have made your argument and Mark has made his with regards to intake of large quantities of vitamins and how that relates to sufferers of depression.

No, Fulton has made no "argument" and that is my point. He has presented no evidence that those with MDD need more than the RDA of any nutrient. The issue starts and ends with that.

Quote:Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

That is the null hypothesis and it is the null hypothesis because no evidence has been produced that those with MDD need to be overdosed on any nutrient.

Quote:What is the evidence supporting this claim?

The evidence for the null hypothesis is the absence of evidence that indicates that those with MDD have a metabolic condition such that they are unlike the rest of the population and hence require supraphysiological doses of any nutrient.

Quote:Is Chippy invoking psuedoscience and pretending to be a quack himself or does he have something more substantial than what Mark has kindly presented in support of Mark's own claim?

Your beloved Mark has not presented any substantive evidence for his claims and that is what I have been trying to tell you for the last 10 or so posts. Articles on a naturpoath's blog and advertorials on supplement manufacturers websites and anecdotes don't count as evidence.

Quote:Yes, its that simple. Mark was man enough to present his evidence supporting his own claim, now its your turn to support your claim.

Fulton hasn't presented any evidence and that is the nub of the matter. The null hypothesis is that the RDA is sufficient for those with MDD. Fulton has not produced any evidence which should cause me to reject the null hypothesis.

I just scanned through Mann and Trusswell's Essentials of Human Nutrition and nowhere do they identify those with MDD as a special population needing supraphysiological doses of any nutrient.

The evidentiary burden sits on anyone that is seeking to reject the null hypothesis. You and Fulton are trying to reject the null hypothesis so provide the evidence. Present me a paper which shows that those with MDD are metabolically different such that they need in excess of the RDA. If those with MDD need supraphysiological doses of any nutrient then there should be evidence of this metabolic peculiarity. In the absense of any such evidence the null hypothesis stands and those with MDD do not represent a distinct population with special dietetic needs.

You are just trying to reverse the burden of proof and this is getting tiresome. I doubt you have completed even the first year of a degree in the biological sciences. What you have been posting is just blather. The RDA applies to all humans except certain sub-populations that have been identified on the basis of EVIDENCE--NOT FUCKING SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE--and those with MDD have not been shown to form such a sub-population. Unless you can demonstrate that you have understood the preceding I am going to ignore you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 02:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

That is the null hypothesis and it is the null hypothesis because no evidence has been produced that those with MDD need to be overdosed on any nutrient.
You are practicing psuedo science, you are pretending to be a medical expert and providing a very poor claim as if it is fact. This is dangerous.
There is certainly a very good reason why doctors go to medical school and learn their trade. There is a very good reason why government's regulate, monitor and licence doctors in order to allow them to provide medical services.

In absence of evidence the claim would be, that there is insufficient data to assess the correlation of vitamin intake with regards to clinical depression.
But this is not what you are stating. You are not making the null hypothesis. Your claim is an assertive and positive claim, made in a boastful and arrogant way whilst making childish, immature and unprovoked attacks on a real Doctor.

Your claim Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
You need to provide evidence supporting this claim, that depressed people can benefit all they can from vitamins by merely taking the RDA.

You cannot merely suggest that RDA is authoritative with regards to people whom suffer from depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Daily_Intake
Quote:The Reference Daily Intake or Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) is the daily intake level of a nutrient that is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of 97–98% of healthy individuals in every demographic in the United States

(04-11-2013 02:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, its that simple. Mark was man enough to present his evidence supporting his own claim, now its your turn to support your claim.

Fulton hasn't presented any evidence and that is the nub of the matter.
Whether you accept the evidence that Mark has presented or not is beside the point. Mark has made his case in support of his claim. Mark is THE MAN.

Currently you are the WEASLE. Now you have an opportunity to Man Up. It's a simple task. Doesn't even matter if you fail, all you have to do is try.

Either, Provide evidence supporting your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

or scurry away down your weasle hole, sniff out your modified douchebag and shove it firmly into your own rear end!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
04-11-2013, 03:05 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 02:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  You are just trying to reverse the burden of proof and this is getting tiresome. I doubt you have completed even the first year of a degree in the biological sciences. What you have been posting is just blather. The RDA applies to all humans except certain sub-populations that have been identified on the basis of EVIDENCE--NOT FUCKING SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE--and those with MDD have not been shown to form such a sub-population. Unless you can demonstrate that you have understood the preceding I am going to ignore you.

Chippy, I hope you realize this Stevil guy is just (apparently successfully) trolling you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 05:57 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 11:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's fine, but lets focus on your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

I've already answered your question. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to acknowledge it or don't understand it.

Quote:I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.

I've never seen a paper claiming that those with MDD don't need pop rocks so they must need pop rocks.

I'm willing to bet if more people ate pop rocks, it would actually relieve their depression momentarily. Pop rocks are just plain childish fun. :-)

Great sidestepping of the demand for evidence, chippy. See? I'm not the only one that noticed
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: