So I’m curious, do you believe that typical supplements have net negative effect, vs just neutral?
It was my understanding that the weight of evidence points to most having neutral overall effect, which to me wouldn’t justify instant suspicion. I mean you may be wasting money, but you probably aren’t hurting yourself.
And if you really do the research, you probably are going to get some net positive gain, statistically speaking. Don’t you think? I know of at least 2 cases (vitamin D and fish oil, where the evidence for net benefit is strong—but mainly due to deficiency in the modern diet).
I think it is a mixed bag: Some supplements are potentially dangerous, but others (like the ones you mention) can be very helpful. The majority, however, probably have little to no effect whatsoever. As a result, I don’t think people should mess around with what they eat without it being subjected to rigorous clinical trials first; though there might be a positive net gain, one dose of something bad can kill you.
In any case, though, believing that something is helpful when it has not yet been tested is clearly irrational. (This is more what I concerned about with Best and Kurzweil.) Selling or promoting something that isn’t tested is even worse; it borders on fraud and charlatanry.
So I’m curious, do you believe that typical supplements have net negative effect, vs just neutral?
It was my understanding that the weight of evidence points to most having neutral overall effect, which to me wouldn’t justify instant suspicion. I mean you may be wasting money, but you probably aren’t hurting yourself.
And if you really do the research, you probably are going to get some net positive gain, statistically speaking. Don’t you think? I know of at least 2 cases (vitamin D and fish oil, where the evidence for net benefit is strong—but mainly due to deficiency in the modern diet).
I think it is a mixed bag: Some supplements are potentially dangerous, but others (like the ones you mention) can be very helpful. The majority, however, probably have little to no effect whatsoever. As a result, I don’t think people should mess around with what they eat without it being subjected to rigorous clinical trials first; though there might be a positive net gain, one dose of something bad can kill you.
In any case, though, believing that something is helpful when it has not yet been tested is clearly irrational. (This is more what I concerned about with Best and Kurzweil.) Selling or promoting something that isn’t tested is even worse; it borders on fraud and charlatanry.
Edit: No, let me amend that: it is charlatanry.