• Re: Life extension and this newsgroup

    From increase lifespan@21:1/5 to Brian Manning Delaney on Wed Aug 31 08:13:16 2022
    On Sunday, November 30, 1997 at 9:00:00 AM UTC+1, Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
    <> Terminology
    Tom Matthews wrote:
    : Well we do need a common term which stands for
    : all the things, possibly excepting hormones,
    : which one normally supplements. My preferred
    : term is "nutrient", but I realize that's
    : actually too broad since is includes all foods
    : as well. But then often, foods too are taken in
    : concentrated supplemental pill form. I will try
    : to stick to just using the term "nutrient"
    : unless I specifically mean the defined vitamins.
    "Nutrient" is a good general term (I think it ultimately
    comes from the Latin _nutrire_, to feed, which is, in a
    sense, all we're talking about here), but it's not great,
    since it presupposes that the substances in question
    actually do nourish. Maybe "purported nutrients" or
    something like that would be better. I prefer "substance."
    But I'll know what you mean when you say nutrient.
    <> Miscellaneous.
    : > > My view of this
    : > > is that any combination of vitamins which does
    : > > ameliorate some disease process is quite likely (not
    : > > necessarily, but reasonably likely) to be
    : > > beneficial to those which do not have that
    : > > disease process either to prevent them from
    : > > getting that specific disease or for other
    : > > general health purposes.
    : Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
    : > I disagree very strongly with this view, especially if
    : > expand it to include more than just vitamins.
    : >
    : > One obvious
    : > example where this is false is where a disease is caused
    : > a deficiency of a vitamin (most vitamins). Giving
    : > more than enough B-12 to prevent the B-12 deficiency
    : > associated diseases isn't going to improve their health
    : > beyond the improvement that would come with the
    : > of existing deficiency conditions (if there had been a
    : > deficiency). Thinking otherwise is the classic 1970's
    : > life-extensionist fallacy: less than "normal" is bad,
    : > therefore more than normal is good. It's not true (the
    : > statement).
    : Well, I understand what you are saying and you
    : are right that in certain cases, more will not
    : be better and in fact may be worse....
    That's not what I'm getting at. I put in the parenthetical
    comment to stress that I'm disagreeing with a particular
    line of reasoning which argues: IF less is bad, THEN more is
    good (more is better than normal; normal =
    "deficiency"-avoidance levels). I believe that more is
    indeed good, very good, in particular cases. Example:
    there's evidence that folic acid far above levels that
    prevent anemia is beneficial. But we don't know if the extra
    folic acid is beneficial in ways that have much to do with
    its RDA-level functioning. It might not be at all. (There
    are many other exs.; vitamin C is also a good case.)
    Does B-12 beyond RDA levels do anything special? Vitamin K?
    Copper? Manganese? Iodine?, etc.
    : ... However,
    : with respect to vitamin deficiency conditions, I
    : believe that you are wrong. It doesn't make
    : sense that the amount necessary to stop the
    : deficiency symptoms will also be the optimal
    : amount to stop various unseen, hard to detect,
    : subclinial physiological or biochemical "weaknesses"
    : which a higher, "optimal" amount would overcome.
    Substances ("nutrients") do _qualitatively_ different things
    at different doses. Claims about zinc are an instance of the
    1970's life-extensionist fallacy: zinc is needed for proper
    immune function, THEREFORE more zinc gives even BETTER
    immunity. This is wrong (both the full statement, AND the
    idea itself that more than RDA zinc improves immunity, as
    far as research currently shows -- there may be exceptions
    -- the elderly, for ex.).
    Extra zinc, may, under certain conditions, be useful for
    certain disease conditions, but thoughts and experiments
    about this should be -- or, certainly, shouldn't not at all
    be -- decoupled from what we know of its RDA-level role.
    : As for the "classic 1970's life-extension fallacy",
    : it is always easy for those who weren't mature (or
    : even born) at a certain time in the past to look
    : back and see the era in a stereotyped way.
    : However, I believe there were lots of people
    : around then who also did not simply think that
    : more was always better. At least, I know I didn't.
    Absolutely. I'm referring only to what appeared in a lot of
    pop books, and to that which was believed by a lot of people
    in general.
    : > >> and 3) justification for the claim of efficacy of the
    : > >> substances in combination.
    : > > I don't understand you again here. You know that
    : > > we will "not" find any such studies in general.
    : > We've run into this problem before, the problem of
    : > understanding what we mean by "justification," or even
    : > "reasons." Justification doesn't require a strictly
    : > empirical approach; indeed, such an approach is
    : > (deduction and interpretation are both always required).
    : > I just mean an answer to the question: What are the
    : > for thinking that evidence of the efficacy of the
    : > that comes from studies of their use in isolation (or
    : > or other small numbers of them) still operates when all
    : > these substances are used in combination? (You know,
    : > "justify": to make "justus," to make just, right. The

    [Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
    Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they
    are not statements of fact.
    "Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
    ** Please do not CC your Usenet articles to me. I'll find

    High dosed lab tested supplement, proven to extend lifespan.


    NMN plus RESVERATROL plus QUERCETIN in a phytosome complex.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)