Act Acting » Method Acting » Survey on Chiropractors & Mega Vitimins

Survey on Chiropractors & Mega Vitimins

Question:

(EmailChris) writes:

Aspirin *never* causes stomach ulcers (contrary to "common" sense.) -MD

Response:

(Brian S) writes:

HM study- 44% fewer initial MIs in males taking 100 mg – 650 mg aspirin daily. Now appears the incidence of first CVA and some Cas also reduced. (Concomitant ingestion of B=carotene appeared to further reduce first MI incidence in HM study.) -MD

Response:

(EmailChris) writes:

Response:

about aspirin daily to prevent heart attacks. One reason not to take it is that the average person loses about 2 teaspoons of blood from the stomach with each aspirin taken which of course can lead to ulcers. Yes, it may be better to drink a moderate amount of wine instead. — Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, (604) 822-2267 2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia fax 822-6047 Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4 home 733-1303

Response:

(Brian S) writes:

: : Clancy) writes:

: : But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that : taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks. : : This is not for everyone, I believe this is ONLY if you’ve a : history of heart disease, to be exact, having suffered from a : previous : heart attack. : : Not true… Reader’s Digest just did a story that cited studies that : showed much lower rates of heart attacks for people who never had : them before and lower rates of certain types of cancer. If in doubt : of the powers of asprin read that article, it convinced me. : : My question, the only reason I have seen given for not taken asprin : (for adults) is stomach ulcers. If I don’t get ulcers why not take : it??? : : — Chris :Remember, Readers Digest is not the Harvard Medical Journal or other :similarly qualified periodical….unless they were referencing :studies/articles by another reputable source….just be careful how :much you take to heart. :BPS Redaers Digest is a VERY reputable magazine and all the studies they quoted were from reputable studies. It is generally understood that asprin thins the blood and that is why people believe that it lowers your risk of heart attack. Even if there were no studies, which there are, that state that asprin reduces the risk of first time heart attacks, I think it is common sense that it would. People usually know if they have a reaction to asprin by the time they are 20 or so. My original question remains: My question, the only reason I have seen given for not taken asprin (for adults) is stomach ulcers. If I don’t get ulcers why not take it??? — Chris

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Clancy) writes: But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks. This is not for everyone, I believe this is ONLY if you’ve a history of heart disease, to be exact, having suffered from a previous heart attack. Not true… Reader’s Digest just did a story that cited studies that showed much lower rates of heart attacks for people who never had them before and lower rates of certain types of cancer. If in doubt of the powers of asprin read that article, it convinced me. My question, the only reason I have seen given for not taken asprin (for adults) is stomach ulcers. If I don’t get ulcers why not take it??? — Chris

Remember, Readers Digest is not the Harvard Medical Journal or other similarly qualified periodical….unless they were referencing studies/articles by another reputable source….just be careful how much you take to heart. BPS

Response:

Re: nutritional guidance through what "tastes good to your body" (not necessarily your palate. Please provide details. What are your criteria for "good" vs. "bad" taste as determined by your body?

Response:

Clancy) writes: But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks. This is not for everyone, I believe this is ONLY if you’ve a history of heart disease, to be exact, having suffered from a previous heart attack.

Not true… Reader’s Digest just did a story that cited studies that showed much lower rates of heart attacks for people who never had them before and lower rates of certain types of cancer. If in doubt of the powers of asprin read that article, it convinced me. My question, the only reason I have seen given for not taken asprin (for adults) is stomach ulcers. If I don’t get ulcers why not take it??? — Chris

Response:

| | Ahem. Asprin is not a nutrient so your analogy there is certainly not | well taken. If you want to label every health improving use of vitamins | suicide? Are the children who have died of vitamin A poisoning | healthier corpses? Obviously dosage is very important in determining | what function a substance will perform in your body – once you have | exceeded the bodies tiny requirements for vitamins and storage | vitamins are no longer acting as nutrients. This is an established | concept in nutrition and medicine. | | I am a new reader of this group, and would like to at least state my opinion on the issue of health and nutrition- LISTEN TO YOUR BODY, AND DONT TRY TO SECOND GUESS IT!! your body has all the information and knowledge that you could ever need to access already at your finger tips. Nutrition is only a balance of the proper nutrients and forms of energy that your system needs at any given time. And since your system, and environment is general in a constant state of change, growth, mental/spiritual development, it makes sense that all its needs will change as well. The easiest way to find out what your system needs, is to try to get beyond all the bias and presuppositions of what is right, and discover what tastes good for your BODY. This can be a different taste than for your pallette, since there are foods such as chocolate and sugar that may taste good, but actually leach your system of more nutrients than they provide. I have found this to be a very successfull method to practice, although it does require a bit of patience, practice, awareness, and understanding. But once you get the hang of it, it can really be a lot of fun, and very rewarding. I hope I didnt step on any toes, but this is definately something that I have found that WORKS. Thanks, ken. — Ken Burgess Nasa-Ames Research Center (415)-604-6347

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ahem. Asprin is not a nutrient so your analogy there is certainly not well taken. If you want to label every health improving use of vitamins other than preventing deficieny disease to be "medication" and thereby "prove" that vitamins have no other *nutritional* role, go ahead. Ahem. While this is a non-technical newsgroup and some laxity of usage is acceptable, there is no reason to be obtuse about it. Would you consider overdosing with vitamin A a nutritionally superior way to suicide? Are the children who have died of vitamin A poisoning healthier corpses? Obviously dosage is very important in determining what function a substance will perform in your body – once you have exceeded the bodies tiny requirements for vitamins and storage vitamins are no longer acting as nutrients. This is an established concept in nutrition and medicine.

I never, ever, even once so much as slightly implied that I consider any dose of any vitamin to be a good plan, or even more ludicrously, "optimal nutrition". Of course, some vitamins and minerals are highly toxic if taken in excess. Others on the other hand, are not. Tell me about the deaths from vitamin C, E, or folic acid overdose, will you please. Even for the vitamins that can be toxic, there is a very wide range between "more than the minimum required to prevent deficiency" and "toxic". Doses in this range could provide benefit. The question of whether it can be beneficial to use them, and whether there can be benefit to taking more than one would get normally from the diet, is, I think, what people are really interested in. That is probably important to most people. So why do you insist on labeling the drug of a vitamin ‘optimal nutrition’? Call it a drug and let people know the good and bad effects of it, just like with any drug.

I *don’t* insist on calling more than minimal doses of vitamins "optimal nutrition". Fact is I don’t give a hoot what you call it. Call it a ‘drug’ a ’spammer’ or a ‘pranolitch’ – semantics are of *extremely limited* interest in this context. The interesting question is whether such uses of supplements can have health benefits either in sickness or in preserving health in healthy people. I think the evidence is mounting that in some cases they can. And of course, I think that people should be informed of risks and benefits just as with drugs, and for that matter foods. The implication that I would not wish such information given my previous statements is astonishing. [Deleted by Scott, his claims that any mention of the evidence suggesting that smokers with a high carotene intake have a lower cancer risk is shameless promotion by vitamin companies intended to hornswaggle gullible smokers into thinking that they can take a little pill instead of quitting smoking] [My response to this was:] I find your attitude here to be strikingly unsympathetic. *OF COURSE* its better to stop smoking but not everyone can do that. Take my father, over the years, he has tried numerous times and numerous ways to stop smoking and failed every single time. It would be remarkable to characterize advice that he reduce his risk by taking anti-oxidants as ‘disgusting’. Disgusting even.

[Scott Now Responds:] If anti-oxidants are actually reducing his risk. I would guess that we are 5-10 years away from a good answer to the question of supplementation with anti-oxidants. It’s perfectly clear *today* that not smoking and eating fruits and vegetables will reduce your fathers cancer risk. It is far from equally clear that beta-carotene will do that anywhere near as well or at all. The cancer wards are filled with smokers who consumed ‘C’ or ‘A’ or ‘beta-carotene’ to reduce their cancer risk – I know because I have met them. I wonder how many of them would have stopped smoking if they hadn’t been propagandized by comments like the above?

I think that the advice that my father should eat more fruits and veggies is good. He should also take reasonable doses of anti-oxidant vitamins because the risks are nil and the benefits are probable given the studies we do have. I am throughly amazed at your referring to my comment as ‘propaganda’. Perhaps somewhere, someone is saying "take vitamins and you can keep smoking with no risk of cancer". I’ve never seen this myself, but perhaps you have. Fine. I’m not saying that. I said, *OF COURSE* its better to stop smoking. Right there in my response to you. Didn’t you see it? If my comment was propoganda intended to seduce smokers into thinking they can take vitamins instead of stopping, this must be some new meaning of the term ‘propaganda’ that I have not previously been acquainted with. Please do keep in mind that as I mentioned above, my father has CAN’T QUIT despite trying various times for *more than* 20 years. He tried to stop before all the publicity about vitamins and couldn’t, and he can’t now. I am interested in your conversations with those on the cancer wards — what is your connection there? Also, BTW, did any of these people say, "I ate a good diet," which *even you* admit is probably beneficial. If they did say this does it mean that they were suckered into thinking that this would totally negate the destructive effects of smoking and make it so that they magically would be immune to cancer? Or is it the case that even if diet and vitamins reduce the risk of cancer in smokers, many smokers who take the measures will get cancer anyway, and be right there in the hospital ready to say, "I took carotene" or "I ate my veggies"? -Steve Dunn

Response:

Ahem. Asprin is not a nutrient so your analogy there is certainly not well taken. If you want to label every health improving use of vitamins other than preventing deficieny disease to be "medication" and thereby "prove" that vitamins have no other *nutritional* role, go ahead. Ahem. While this is a non-technical newsgroup and some laxity of usage is acceptable, there is no reason to be obtuse about it. Would you consider overdosing with vitamin A a nutritionally superior way to suicide? Are the children who have died of vitamin A poisoning healthier corpses? Obviously dosage is very important in determining what function a substance will perform in your body – once you have exceeded the bodies tiny requirements for vitamins and storage vitamins are no longer acting as nutrients. This is an established concept in nutrition and medicine. The question of whether it can be beneficial to use them, and whether there can be benefit to taking more than one would get normally from the diet, is, I think, what people are really interested in. That is probably important to most people. So why do you insist on labeling the drug of a vitamin ‘optimal nutrition’? Call it a drug and let people know the good and bad effects of it, just like with any drug. I find your attitude here to be strikingly unsympathetic. *OF COURSE* its better to stop smoking but not everyone can do that. Take my father, over the years, he has tried numerous times and numerous ways to stop smoking and failed every single time. It would be remarkable to characterize advice that he reduce his risk by taking anti-oxidants as ‘disgusting’. Disgusting even. If anti-oxidants are actually reducing his risk. I would guess that we are 5-10 years away from a good answer to the question of supplementation with anti-oxidants. It’s perfectly clear *today* that not smoking and eating fruits and vegetables will reduce your fathers cancer risk. It is far from equally clear that beta-carotene will do that anywhere near as well or at all. The cancer wards are filled with smokers who consumed ‘C’ or ‘A’ or ‘beta-carotene’ to reduce their cancer risk – I know because I have met them. I wonder how many of them would have stopped smoking if they hadn’t been propagandized by comments like the above? sdb —

Response:

But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks.

This is not for everyone, I believe this is ONLY if you’ve a history of heart disease, to be exact, having suffered from a previous heart attack. Thomas

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, of course it is. `Optimal nutrition’ is a chimera, syntactic noise, at best/worst `marketing hype’. Chimera? Syntactic noise? Are we getting a bit carried away here? Surely whether vitamin and mineral dosages greater than those provided by normal diets or supplementation in general can provide health benefits other than preventing overt deficiency disease is a question of fact, not of semantics. But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks. Do you call that ‘optimal nutrition’ or drug therapy? There’s evidence that taking large dosages of niacin can prevent the heart diseases caused by high cholesterol levels. Both are acting as drugs and both have bad side effects. It’s certainly not nutritious or wise for everyone to take an aspirin every other day or large dosages of niacin a day.

I find your attitude here to be strikingly unsympathetic. *OF COURSE* its better to stop smoking but not everyone can do that. Take my father, over the years, he has tried numerous times and numerous ways to stop smoking and failed every single time. It would be remarkable to characterize advice that he reduce his risk by taking anti-oxidants as ‘disgusting’. Disgusting even. -Steve Dunn

Response:

Well, of course it is. `Optimal nutrition’ is a chimera, syntactic noise, at best/worst `marketing hype’. Chimera? Syntactic noise? Are we getting a bit carried away here? Surely whether vitamin and mineral dosages greater than those provided by normal diets or supplementation in general can provide health benefits other than preventing overt deficiency disease is a question of fact, not of semantics. But that’s not nutrition – that’s medication. There’s evidence that taking an aspirin every other day can prevent heart attacks. Do you call that ‘optimal nutrition’ or drug therapy? There’s evidence that taking large dosages of niacin can prevent the heart diseases caused by high cholesterol levels. Both are acting as drugs and both have bad side effects. It’s certainly not nutritious or wise for everyone to take an aspirin every other day or large dosages of niacin a day. There is in fact evidence for taking nutrients in excess of that required to prevent deficiency disease in many cases. As one example, there is consistent evidence showing that smokers with high beta-carotene intakes are significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than those with low carotene intakes. There are many others of course. Again, this is not nutrition – smokers are not suffering from vitamin A related deficiencies. Paragraphs like this are also an annoyance – you reduce your risk of lung cancer the *most* if you never smoke. I see stuff like that from vitamin manufacturers all the time "smokers need more ‘C’, smokers can reduce their risk of lung cancer with beta carotene". Disgusting stuff. sdb —

Response:

Chimera? Syntactic noise? Are we getting a bit carried away here? Surely whether vitamin and mineral dosages greater than those provided by normal diets or supplementation in general can provide health benefits other than preventing overt deficiency disease is a question of fact, not of semantics. There is in fact evidence for taking nutrients in excess of that required to prevent deficiency disease in many cases. As one example, there is consistent evidence showing that smokers with high beta-carotene intakes are significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than those with low carotene intakes. There are many others of course. -Steve "Syntactic Noise Maker" Dunn

Response:

On the other hand, you may want to consider whether "not having a deficiency disease" is a good definition of optimal nutrition. Well, of course it is. `Optimal nutrition’ is a chimera, syntactic noise, at best/worst `marketing hype’. A good non-technical book that is worth of your consideration is "The Doctor’s Vitamin and Mineral Encylopedia". About $13 bucks at your local book store. Or try `Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?’ Charles W. Marshall, Ph.D, About $12.00 bucks from Lippincot It also won the American Medical Writers Association’s Best Book Award in 1985 or 1986. sdb —

Response:

That’s a good question. One thing you might consider is that nutritional deficiency diseases – diseases that are caused by an absence of a specific nutritient – are exceedingly rare in the U.S. even among the indigent population. Starting with facts like this as your basis you might begin to question why it is the vitamin companies are so eager to sell us their little pills. A good non-technical book that is worthy of your consideration is "Your Guide to Good Nutrition". About $14 bucks from Prometheus Books.

I agree that the rate of overt nutritional deficiency diseases in otherwise healthy people is low. On the other hand, you may want to consider whether "not having a deficiency disease" is a good definition of optimal nutrition. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest that a greater intake of some vitamins and minerals can be of actual benefit, and little to lose with a modest supplementation program. A good non-technical book that is worth of your consideration is "The Doctor’s Vitamin and Mineral Encylopedia". About $13 bucks at your local book store. -Steve Dunn

Response:

Why can’t educated health care providers come to an agreement on just what is the best vitimin regiment. Most MD’s and the AMA would probably say all you need to do is eat a balanced diet to get all the vitimins you need. I’m going to a Chiropractor who preaches about the need for mega vitimins (his of course which are about 5 times more expensive than you pay at the local drug store because of their purity). Well, you might consider the profit motive here. Here’s an excerpt from a recent (and typical) ad in "The Chiropractic Journal" "Are you ignoring a major income source? Spend 5 seconds per patient and increase your gross profits $53,000 or more per year. According to national studies, over 50% of the population could benefit from some type of nutritional support therapy. Of those individuals who use supplements, the average purchase is 1.5 supplements per visit. That means that if you see an average of 30 patients per day, you will have the opportunity to provide 15 of them with nutritional supplements. Our studies show your average profit margin per patient equals $13.75…=$53,625 gross profit per year." M.D.’s also engage in similar ‘vitamin quackery’ and for much the same reason: profit. If you can get people coming to you regularly for vitamin B shots then you have a sizable guaranteed income there. How does one know who to believe? That’s a good question. One thing you might consider is that nutritional deficiency diseases – diseases that are caused by an absence of a specific nutritient – are exceedingly rare in the U.S. even among the indigent population. Starting with facts like this as your basis you might begin to question why it is the vitamin companies are so eager to sell us their little pills. A good non-technical book that is worthy of your consideration is "Your Guide to Good Nutrition". About $14 bucks from Prometheus Books. sdb —

Response:

Permalink
In: Method Acting

You online HQ for everything ACTING

Home

Act Acting

Survey on Chiropractors & Mega Vitimins

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Popular Posts