Supplements the debate/discussion thread

kai said:
I have just spent the morning reading thr Examine PDF, its actually shocking how much money I have wasted over the years on what are considered useless supplements with associated case studies indicating they technically do nothing.
Click to expand...

Put it on the facebook group ;)
 
kai said:
I have just spent the morning reading the Examine PDF, its actually shocking how much money I have wasted over the years on what are considered useless supplements with associated case studies indicating they technically do nothing.
Click to expand...

what does it say are the top 10 supplements that work or are the most beneficial?

also what are the top 10 worst?
 
if it was proven that a medicine, supplement or food caused cancer, im pretty sure it would be banned.

mind you cigarettes arent, but they should be, makes you think what the people that regulate this stuff actually do?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
if it was proven that a medicine, supplement or food caused cancer, im pretty sure it would be banned.

mind you cigarettes arent, but they should be, makes you think what the people that regulate this stuff actually do?
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand.

No one knows if they cause cancer yet (although there is a strengthening correlation between cancers like prostate cancer and regular takers of Omega-3 and other supplements).

But the one thing that is repeatedly demonstrable in studies is that multivitamns and large amounts of antioxidants have not shown to be carcinogens (like what is contained in tobacco). However, they reduce the body's ability to deal with disease including cancer.

That is why incidences of cancer and cancer mortality are higher in those who regularly supplement vs those who do not.

So you know all the good talk about 'superfoods' and their antioxidants and how good it is to cram your body with them? Complete quakery and is actually to the detriment of your health.

Antioxidation vs. oxidation has been billed as a contest between good and evil. The battle takes place in cellular organelles called mitochondria, where the body converts food to energy, a process that requires oxygen and so is called oxidation. One consequence of oxidation is the generation of electron scavengers called free radicals (evil). Free radicals can damage DNA, cell membranes, and the lining of arteries; not surprisingly, they've been linked to aging, cancer, and heart disease. To neutralize free radicals, the body makes its own antioxidants (good).

Antioxidants can also be found in fruits and vegetables -- specifically, selenium, beta-carotene, and vitamins A, C, and E. Studies have shown that people who eat more fruits and vegetables have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease and live longer. The logic is obvious: if fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants -- and people who eat lots of fruits and vegetables are healthier -- then people who take supplemental antioxidants should also be healthier.

[goes on to describe various controlled studies showing the opposite to be true for supplementers]

How could this be? Given that free radicals clearly damage cells -- and given that people who eat diets rich in substances that neutralize free radicals are healthier -- why did studies of supplemental antioxidants show they were harmful? The most likely explanation is that free radicals aren't as evil as advertised. Although it's clear that free radicals can damage DNA and disrupt cell membranes, that's not always a bad thing. People need free radicals to kill bacteria and eliminate new cancer cells.

But when people take large doses of antioxidants, the balance between free radical production and destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural state in which the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders. Researchers have called this "the antioxidant paradox." Whatever the reason, the data are clear: high doses of vitamins and supplements increase the risk of heart disease and cancer; for this reason, not a single national or international organization responsible for the public's health recommends them.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to scaremonger here. I take the odd supplement when I know, for example, I have not had much oily fish or the rare weekend of eating junk.

The issues that arise are the people with relatively normal diets and supplement day in, day out... on the basis that something is 'good for you' so let's saturate the body with it.

Everything in moderation really does hold true.
 
Last edited:
kai said:
It is usually restricted for men only, but on this occasion I will make the exception if you want to join. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well we wouldn't want to put a spanner in the works by having a woman in the midst of it :p. Is the group in relation to the 100 day plan - I think it was you who posted about that.
 
Does anyone use the likes of Nesquik with their unflavoured proteins?

I have a complete intolerance to anything with milk in it, therefore finding a flavoring is difficult. According to the ingredients, Neskquik seems to be okay though? Does it mix well?

:)
 
Skillmister said:
does it mix well? are you a 4 year old girl?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've got a different dress for every training day.

Have you ever tried soy protein? You'd know that it doesn't mix well so adding additional powder to it would probably make matters worse...hence the question.

The taste has never bothered me post-gym and that's the only time I've ever saw the need to take protein.

With my workload and schedule, I'm looking to add more however, in the morning for example, I couldn't stomach unflavoured soy so a nice taste would be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom