ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
Stop taking Vitamin D already
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BigTex" data-source="post: 229902" data-attributes="member: 43589"><p>[USER=38196]@TorontoTRT[/USER]</p><p>I am not going to ever spew any anti-supplement propaganda and in fact will be the 1st to tell you supplementing is certainly much better than being deficient. In fact, I teach that very thing in a college level nutrition class. I spend quite a few hours doing my own research so I am fully capable of making up my own mind. I was always taught that intelligent people always question what they have been told. I certainly encourage everyone to do the same. I never question motives rather than hold myself to always being a critical thinker. I have never been a sheep in life. We were told in the 80's that anabolic steroids has no athletics enhancement benefits. That statement was in the pharmaceutical inserts of every box of anabolics you got from the pharmacy. I think 60 years of athletes not buying in, made those statement look kind of foolish.</p><p></p><p>The interesting thing I have learned with research it is a set of data gathered based on the investigating of a theory which shows the statistics looking at an average of the sample. There are a lot of individual differences simply because we are all different genetically. For instance, we are told cigarettes will kill you, yet uncle Henry smokes 5 packs a day and is 98 years old.</p><p></p><p>Another problem, many times 1 study get posted out of 100 and it is the only one that shows negative effects. Is it a bad study? Is it all of the sudden gospel? All it means is we need to further investigate, possible look different areas. Why did this study get the results 100 others didn't get? Unless evidence comes from a meta-analysis or randomized clinical trial don't put a whole lot of faith it it. There needs to be more investigations.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps instead of telling people that post data that it is "silly" you post your on arguments regardless if the are science based, observation based or just expert opinions. This is how people debate and how others can intelligently make up their minds. I come to this board simply because of the level of intelligence I see. Lots of very bright minds here that make me think and investigate. I would hope it stays that way and never degrades in sort of Twitter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigTex, post: 229902, member: 43589"] [USER=38196]@TorontoTRT[/USER] I am not going to ever spew any anti-supplement propaganda and in fact will be the 1st to tell you supplementing is certainly much better than being deficient. In fact, I teach that very thing in a college level nutrition class. I spend quite a few hours doing my own research so I am fully capable of making up my own mind. I was always taught that intelligent people always question what they have been told. I certainly encourage everyone to do the same. I never question motives rather than hold myself to always being a critical thinker. I have never been a sheep in life. We were told in the 80's that anabolic steroids has no athletics enhancement benefits. That statement was in the pharmaceutical inserts of every box of anabolics you got from the pharmacy. I think 60 years of athletes not buying in, made those statement look kind of foolish. The interesting thing I have learned with research it is a set of data gathered based on the investigating of a theory which shows the statistics looking at an average of the sample. There are a lot of individual differences simply because we are all different genetically. For instance, we are told cigarettes will kill you, yet uncle Henry smokes 5 packs a day and is 98 years old. Another problem, many times 1 study get posted out of 100 and it is the only one that shows negative effects. Is it a bad study? Is it all of the sudden gospel? All it means is we need to further investigate, possible look different areas. Why did this study get the results 100 others didn't get? Unless evidence comes from a meta-analysis or randomized clinical trial don't put a whole lot of faith it it. There needs to be more investigations. Perhaps instead of telling people that post data that it is "silly" you post your on arguments regardless if the are science based, observation based or just expert opinions. This is how people debate and how others can intelligently make up their minds. I come to this board simply because of the level of intelligence I see. Lots of very bright minds here that make me think and investigate. I would hope it stays that way and never degrades in sort of Twitter. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
Stop taking Vitamin D already
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top