The Daily Recommended Intake of a nutrient is the average amount that prevents a disease of deficiency. According to the guidelines, an average human needs 60 mg/day of Vitamin C to prevent scurvy.
First off, I'm not talking about daily values, those are there to keep you from becoming acutely ill without regard for the development of chronic conditions. The problem is that noone has been funded to perform proper long term human studies because it is so expensive, difficult to analyze due to the overwhelming number of confounding variables, as well as difficult to recoup any costs of doing the study. There is also not much motivation for governments to devote resources towards this since most people live as productive members of society for decades without the studies being done. Not to say I think they shouldn't... but there is only so much time and money to go around. So the wise thing to do is use common sense, eat a balanced diet, and get exercise.
Also it is very easy to consume 60 mg of vitamin C in your diet. Eating a single orange, for example, will provide you with more than that. Further, your bodies ability to absorb vitamin C becomes saturated when present in the GI tract in higher amounts... so it will end up in your feces, and it also metabolizes or excretes any excess vitamin C. See figure 2 (I think it was free... if not just read the abstract) to see that after around 500 mg your body simply does not accept any further vitamin C, the rest is simply gotten rid of or not absorbed in the first place.
But there is also a compelling argument that human bodies benefit from substantially more than the minimum intake. 2x Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling advocated megadoses of vitamin C to treat cancer, for example. The reasoning is that almost every other mammal synthesizes its own Vitamin C.
Linus Pauling was a great man and great scientist, but simply didnt have access to the data we have today that shows his theory about consuming massive amounts of vitamin C is just incorrect. And what did he die of? Prostate Cancer. I mean he did live into his 90s but he may have had just good genes and I'm sure there were many other strategies he used to stay healthy besides taking vitamin C supplements so it would be difficult to attribute that long life to anything in particular.
Humans can't do this due to a genetic problem. If a human synthesized as much Vitamin C as a gorilla, the comparable figure would be on the order of 1000+ mg/day.
I wouldn't call lack of vitamin C synthesis a "genetic problem" because since our ancestors lost the ability 60 million years ago (for reference our latest common ancestor with chimps is thought to have lived around 5 Mya), we have become the most successful mammal, if not most successful animal on the planet. We simply do not need to devote our energies towards vitamin C synthesis. Also gorillas don't synthesize it either, nor do any other primates... or guinea pigs for that matter.
60mg vs 1000+ is a substantial difference. Other vitamins, minerals, amino acids, organic acids, and fats are therapetuic too. Omega 3's are commonly advised (but NOT commonly consumed). Vitamin B6 also comes to mind.
As described above, 60 mg vs 1000 mg is not such a big deal in terms of biological effect, and even less so in terms of dietary intake, since it is so easy to consume near saturating doses of vitamin C. Also it is important to realize that once consumed in a reaction, your vitamin C is regenerated by other anti-oxidants present in your body and ready to work again(e.g. glutathione, which is generated from non-essential amino acids and present in huge amounts in every cell of your body).
With regards to other macro and micronutrients, I wouldn't call them therapeutic since they are nutrients and thus essential to being healthy, but yes they are good for you when co
I'll get back to this if you're actually interested, but for now... I agree with you that proper nutrition is important and that depression is not caused by a dietary deficiency of prozac. I also agree that the pharm industry is pretty out of control with all this marketing. On the other hand, supplements will only be helpful if someone has a deficiency of something in the first place. Also the reason the FDA is such an ass about supplements is that noone is willing to pay the millions upon millions to do proper human testing and that is what needs to be done for something to be approved to say on the label that it should be used to treat some condition. Thats just a tragedy of the commons that should be fixed via direct government funding of the studies. Suing them so that the bar for safety and efficacy testing can be lowered is not the correct answer.
Eat your fruits and vegetables and lean meat and you don't need any of this. The modern diet of excess grains (grains are cheap to mass produce and good for supporting a large population but not necessarily a great dietary choice)and fat is the cause, not lack of supplements or advice from non-experts who are trying to sell you some book. In the end they are only telling you what any nutritionally interested person probably knows to begin with.
Your anecdotal evidence does not agree with my anecdotal evidence? Eh? Eh? I was going to give a description of my contradicting experiances but realized whats the point. How do you spell experiance anyway?
Make a few good videos to get your name out there and then do it on request for different models with the price of doing it factored in. You can set up some sort of donation pool that money wouldn't come out of until it was full. Notify everyone the transaction is going to occur giving them a chance to back out (wait a week or don't use any from donaters that dont respond to the final warning if you really want to be nice). HD cameras don't cost that much. Nothing else has to happen until you have the money up front.
Think about genetics as being the thing that determines your reason for being alive. It is not to be rational, not to be smart... understanding the world around you is helpful only in that it may help you make more things like yourself. Whether it be offspring or useful ideas, the point of your existence is to perpetuate your own genes and those like yours (you are 99.99% the same as me even though you don't know or care about me). Evolutionarily, having homosexuals in a family is like having grandmothers... its one extra person to help the family out who isn't adding to the family at the same time, so they can distribute thier energies towards those around them moreso than someone worried about their own children first. It's to the advantage of a group to have a few men and women who don't reproduce for that reason. Social groups only need so many thoughtful individuals... if everyone was like that though, it wouldn't work in a constant survival situation setting.
That's not to say we have the ideal proportion of thoughtful people for today's world or anything, just an explanation for why things are the way they are. You are either a child of god, pointless, or a vehicle for your genes. Choose which to believe.
dudes got hep c. If he doesnt really carefully watch what he eats and drinks ammonia builds up in his brain and slows it down. I'd imagine its like being really really hungover. That said I'm not sure he should be making decisions for people. Then again most decisions seem to be made to just follow the money anyway so maybe noone is worse off for it. Anyway it has nothing to do with education or race.
This might be a dumb question, but why not have some sort of capillary-esque network with a high heat-capacity fluid being pumped through it? Maybe even just deionized water if you have a way of keeping the resistivity high enough.
Not necessarily. Its nothing personal regarding this work, I actually didn't even look at it yet. I'm just pointing out the limitations of peer review. That doctor from India who studies the guy who claims to have not eaten or drank anything for the last 70 years publishes in a peer reviewed journal and everyone I've talked to from India about him called him a quack.
For example, as a scientist unfamiliar with this field, and thus not qualified to judge the particular details of the experiment I would instead focus on the general methods used and the apparent quality of the journal. This journal, found at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfr/, has only been around for 2 years and unless there are some strange politics going on in the forestry field that likely means it does not attract top notch editors/peer-reviewers. It will also likely have a lower barrier to publication relative to other journals as it will not be receiving as many papers.
They also may be more likely to publish something with a questionable premise (although this should have been more an issue for whoever funded the project) and bad controls, etc if it seems like it will hit upon some kind of hot button issue and thus get the journal exposure. Not to say that doesn't ever happen in the case of Nature or Science, but there will be less pressure to do so.
Also its possible that this researcher simply wasnt allowed to publish elsewhere because people automatically rejected her premise as wacky, and so was forced to publish in a lesser known journal and rely on popular media exposure. Or as is more likely the case here, she simply had no credentials and so found it hard to get published.
All I'm saying is that these are things that should pop into your head when you see "peer reviewed" not necessarily images of reliability. Still its a better system than most. Maybe reviewers should have to have their names attached to each article they accept somehow, so some kind of meta-peer-review could go on.
yea the thing is its kind a waste of time and money for people to repeatedly perform the same badly controlled experiment over and over. You can find out the same thing faster and cheaper if you just design it well to begin with rather than waiting for everyones individual biases and differences in technique to average out.
Slashdot Mirror
The Daily Recommended Intake of a nutrient is the average amount that prevents a disease of deficiency. According to the guidelines, an average human needs 60 mg/day of Vitamin C to prevent scurvy.
First off, I'm not talking about daily values, those are there to keep you from becoming acutely ill without regard for the development of chronic conditions. The problem is that noone has been funded to perform proper long term human studies because it is so expensive, difficult to analyze due to the overwhelming number of confounding variables, as well as difficult to recoup any costs of doing the study. There is also not much motivation for governments to devote resources towards this since most people live as productive members of society for decades without the studies being done. Not to say I think they shouldn't... but there is only so much time and money to go around. So the wise thing to do is use common sense, eat a balanced diet, and get exercise.
Also it is very easy to consume 60 mg of vitamin C in your diet. Eating a single orange, for example, will provide you with more than that. Further, your bodies ability to absorb vitamin C becomes saturated when present in the GI tract in higher amounts... so it will end up in your feces, and it also metabolizes or excretes any excess vitamin C. See figure 2 (I think it was free... if not just read the abstract) to see that after around 500 mg your body simply does not accept any further vitamin C, the rest is simply gotten rid of or not absorbed in the first place.
But there is also a compelling argument that human bodies benefit from substantially more than the minimum intake. 2x Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling advocated megadoses of vitamin C to treat cancer, for example. The reasoning is that almost every other mammal synthesizes its own Vitamin C.
Linus Pauling was a great man and great scientist, but simply didnt have access to the data we have today that shows his theory about consuming massive amounts of vitamin C is just incorrect. And what did he die of? Prostate Cancer. I mean he did live into his 90s but he may have had just good genes and I'm sure there were many other strategies he used to stay healthy besides taking vitamin C supplements so it would be difficult to attribute that long life to anything in particular.
Humans can't do this due to a genetic problem. If a human synthesized as much Vitamin C as a gorilla, the comparable figure would be on the order of 1000+ mg/day.
I wouldn't call lack of vitamin C synthesis a "genetic problem" because since our ancestors lost the ability 60 million years ago (for reference our latest common ancestor with chimps is thought to have lived around 5 Mya), we have become the most successful mammal, if not most successful animal on the planet. We simply do not need to devote our energies towards vitamin C synthesis. Also gorillas don't synthesize it either, nor do any other primates... or guinea pigs for that matter.
60mg vs 1000+ is a substantial difference. Other vitamins, minerals, amino acids, organic acids, and fats are therapetuic too. Omega 3's are commonly advised (but NOT commonly consumed). Vitamin B6 also comes to mind.
As described above, 60 mg vs 1000 mg is not such a big deal in terms of biological effect, and even less so in terms of dietary intake, since it is so easy to consume near saturating doses of vitamin C. Also it is important to realize that once consumed in a reaction, your vitamin C is regenerated by other anti-oxidants present in your body and ready to work again(e.g. glutathione, which is generated from non-essential amino acids and present in huge amounts in every cell of your body).
With regards to other macro and micronutrients, I wouldn't call them therapeutic since they are nutrients and thus essential to being healthy, but yes they are good for you when co
I'll get back to this if you're actually interested, but for now... I agree with you that proper nutrition is important and that depression is not caused by a dietary deficiency of prozac. I also agree that the pharm industry is pretty out of control with all this marketing. On the other hand, supplements will only be helpful if someone has a deficiency of something in the first place. Also the reason the FDA is such an ass about supplements is that noone is willing to pay the millions upon millions to do proper human testing and that is what needs to be done for something to be approved to say on the label that it should be used to treat some condition. Thats just a tragedy of the commons that should be fixed via direct government funding of the studies. Suing them so that the bar for safety and efficacy testing can be lowered is not the correct answer.
Eat your fruits and vegetables and lean meat and you don't need any of this. The modern diet of excess grains (grains are cheap to mass produce and good for supporting a large population but not necessarily a great dietary choice)and fat is the cause, not lack of supplements or advice from non-experts who are trying to sell you some book. In the end they are only telling you what any nutritionally interested person probably knows to begin with.
Those people are marketers.
...do you count using a base 10 number system or not?
So are you saying it cant be taken to far?
Your anecdotal evidence does not agree with my anecdotal evidence? Eh? Eh? I was going to give a description of my contradicting experiances but realized whats the point. How do you spell experiance anyway?
Make a few good videos to get your name out there and then do it on request for different models with the price of doing it factored in. You can set up some sort of donation pool that money wouldn't come out of until it was full. Notify everyone the transaction is going to occur giving them a chance to back out (wait a week or don't use any from donaters that dont respond to the final warning if you really want to be nice). HD cameras don't cost that much. Nothing else has to happen until you have the money up front.
Think about genetics as being the thing that determines your reason for being alive. It is not to be rational, not to be smart... understanding the world around you is helpful only in that it may help you make more things like yourself. Whether it be offspring or useful ideas, the point of your existence is to perpetuate your own genes and those like yours (you are 99.99% the same as me even though you don't know or care about me). Evolutionarily, having homosexuals in a family is like having grandmothers... its one extra person to help the family out who isn't adding to the family at the same time, so they can distribute thier energies towards those around them moreso than someone worried about their own children first. It's to the advantage of a group to have a few men and women who don't reproduce for that reason. Social groups only need so many thoughtful individuals... if everyone was like that though, it wouldn't work in a constant survival situation setting.
That's not to say we have the ideal proportion of thoughtful people for today's world or anything, just an explanation for why things are the way they are. You are either a child of god, pointless, or a vehicle for your genes. Choose which to believe.
dudes got hep c. If he doesnt really carefully watch what he eats and drinks ammonia builds up in his brain and slows it down. I'd imagine its like being really really hungover. That said I'm not sure he should be making decisions for people. Then again most decisions seem to be made to just follow the money anyway so maybe noone is worse off for it. Anyway it has nothing to do with education or race.
This might be a dumb question, but why not have some sort of capillary-esque network with a high heat-capacity fluid being pumped through it? Maybe even just deionized water if you have a way of keeping the resistivity high enough.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1586eas2.txt.pdf
the latest version is from august 5th 2010, thats not it
no it doesn't, check the dates on each version... the most current is #4 on that list
the government doesnt actually care about child porn
Its called the law of diminishing returns you idiot
even though its usually against the law. Dare breaking a law yourself though...
Yea I posted that before realizing she was just some lady, it is pretty awesome.
All is good.
Not necessarily. Its nothing personal regarding this work, I actually didn't even look at it yet. I'm just pointing out the limitations of peer review. That doctor from India who studies the guy who claims to have not eaten or drank anything for the last 70 years publishes in a peer reviewed journal and everyone I've talked to from India about him called him a quack.
For example, as a scientist unfamiliar with this field, and thus not qualified to judge the particular details of the experiment I would instead focus on the general methods used and the apparent quality of the journal. This journal, found at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfr/, has only been around for 2 years and unless there are some strange politics going on in the forestry field that likely means it does not attract top notch editors/peer-reviewers. It will also likely have a lower barrier to publication relative to other journals as it will not be receiving as many papers.
They also may be more likely to publish something with a questionable premise (although this should have been more an issue for whoever funded the project) and bad controls, etc if it seems like it will hit upon some kind of hot button issue and thus get the journal exposure. Not to say that doesn't ever happen in the case of Nature or Science, but there will be less pressure to do so.
Also its possible that this researcher simply wasnt allowed to publish elsewhere because people automatically rejected her premise as wacky, and so was forced to publish in a lesser known journal and rely on popular media exposure. Or as is more likely the case here, she simply had no credentials and so found it hard to get published.
All I'm saying is that these are things that should pop into your head when you see "peer reviewed" not necessarily images of reliability. Still its a better system than most. Maybe reviewers should have to have their names attached to each article they accept somehow, so some kind of meta-peer-review could go on.
yea the thing is its kind a waste of time and money for people to repeatedly perform the same badly controlled experiment over and over. You can find out the same thing faster and cheaper if you just design it well to begin with rather than waiting for everyones individual biases and differences in technique to average out.
fyi, "peer reviewed" doesn't neccesarily mean peer reviewed by someone who cared or knew what they were talking about.
What is the second image a picture of? and why is that caption so terrible?
it cant be... unless its a wobbler
exactly we dont need more laws
Dinosaurs were made partly of helium? No wonder they grew so big.