Technically there's nothing that would make synthetic anything categorically better than natural anything. In practice it depends on what we are talking about. For the most part, synthetics are just fine. The main issue is like said earlier, bioavailability, but another issue is that taking micronutrients in micro form, aka pills and powders, leaves a lot of space in the stomach for big macs and pop-tarts.

The best thing you could learn about medicine and nutrition is that as a general rule, there are no absolutes. There's too many variables to take into account that in the end empirical evidence (=research) is the final arbiter. And even in research there's fluidity and potential for repeated errors even across studies. It's always good to take everything with a grain of salt. Reasoning based on earlier consensus is reasonable, but one should be aware of the possibility of being wrong. The latter is integral to any legit science.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 25 2016 12:51pm

for sure. it doesn't help that the amount of research established on this topic specifically is lacking.

you make a good point with what i bolded. certain vitamins require other things we eat to be properly absorbed. one example is fat-soluble vitamins. fiber, protein, all that shit affect absorption. alcohol consumption affects vitamin absorption too. in some foods, the whole food lends itself to the absorption of its vitamins, others not so much. it's a big reason in why a balanced whole foods diet is best.

if you take certain multivitamins you're gonna have funny smelling neon green piss by lunch time. guess why that is?

supplementation can be used effectively if you know your diet... but the thought that multivitamins are giving anyone complete micronutrition is just outrageous

This post was edited by Wretch on Sep 25 2016 02:40pm

keep the horseshit coming

Not only a concept in medicine...but science...life too bruh.

Lets say then that the degree of absoluteness is much smaller in medicine and nutrition than in physics, for example. So far nothing conflicts with general and special relativity, and therefore it's predictions are absolute as long as we don't have a better model.

In medicine and nutrition we don't have such exact models. That's why they're not called exact sciences, though they are sciences nevertheless.

I do agree that staying away from absolutes is mostly good. There are cases however where it yields greater good. Mostly related to some moral choices.



The fuck you smoking? Point out where i said something wrong or keep the oneliners to yourself unless your mental well-being in your basement is dependent on it

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 28 2016 05:08am

U cheeky knt, u

Four part reply:

1. there are plenty of conflicts with both forms of relativity, but they are mostly internally coherent theories which fail to explain various "anomalies", including, famously, what's going on with black holes, for example. so you could say the same thing about newtonian physics. it does well in a little box. but the universe is a very, very big box. it's not like relativity has never met with problems when encountered by the essentials of quantum physics, let alone rogueish theories like string theory. there is an explanatory borderline, a membrane, and it's like a distributed mass rather than a point in logical space, and relatively meets with a lot of friction when it bumps into it; that is, right into reality. i wrote my thesis on abstract objects, and one of the stumbling blocks to a clear definition of an object is that it's an incredibly diverse concept; you cannot explain 'objects' via relativity, that's for certain. you can say than an object is anything with both mass and energy, but that's just the beginning.

2. the degree of certainty of any science is directly proportional to the potency of the dominant mythology around it; of course, science is unfolding truth, giving us a greater grasp of reality. but we're just conscious beings reflecting on whence we came; we aren't going to get direct access to static facts about the universe--ever. or we can get 'facts' but only the facts that we agree on with our conventions, our logic, etc. but even logic is a terrible guide. Stephen Read's Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy Of Logic is the classic source.

3. Overly defensive scientists will rail to the defense of scientific method, results, logic, etc.. And even though it is quite clear that science will never allow us to "touch" reality or truth any more than we are already immersed in it by being in the universe, the refinements of science serve an important practical service. This is abundantly clear because we can look at the progress science has made. Without it, our medicine would not be as robust, our economics would be impossible to understand (they still are, because we're involved in it and we cloud it up), we wouldn't have a whole lot of cool and helpful technology, etc. etc.. It's the practical use of science as well as the joy of discovery inherent in its practice that makes it one of our greatest pursuits. It gives us context and meaning, and it enables us to sort through the rubbish of information.

4. So when it is said that science is not absolute, my question is: absolute in respect to what? It IS absolute, so far as it brings us close to the limits of human inquiry. It is an absolute challenge to our intellect. It can bring us together and improve our lives. And insofar as we are beings who NEED mythology, it is a beautiful and provocative mythology. Let us take a moment to compare all the harms done in the names of religion and freedom and compare those against the grandeur and beauty science has given us. Science is not a neutral game, but it's neutral with respect to our morality, and so far, thankfully, it has not been so bastardized as to become our closest link to death. results in medicine, nutrition -- just about anything -- are made better and more efficiently through science. My point is that we can crap on the absoluteness of any science but why not focus on what it does to make life better?

// Nutrition is not an exact science and it's incredibly complex because our bodies are incredibly complex (our chemistry, our systems). It hasn't received nearly enough attention in the scientific world but I think we know enough to know that science is our best guide to understanding it.