Posts by darkbison81

It’s not just an issue here in the States. In some parts of the world, these organ trafficking networks are actually much better organized; wherever there's demand, they manage to manufacture a supply to match...

I first heard about this from my own family doctor. Later, through my professional work, I had direct contact with people involved in tissue typing—which is a mandatory step for any transplant. They were the ones who told me straight up: never agree to be typed unless you absolutely have to for your own medical needs. The logic is that once your data is sitting in those registries, if you ever end up hospitalized while someone else (ideally someone with deep pockets) happens to be a perfect match, things can "accidentally" go sideways very quickly...

People don't talk about this kind of thing in public, obviously, but the people close to me—my family and my inner circle of colleagues—felt it was my responsibility to warn me.

Unfortunately, just like everything else in life, people always find a way to take a noble idea and completely ruin it.😢

In a perfect world, I’d probably feel okay with the idea that if I were freshly deceased, my organs could go wherever they were needed most...

stormylynx14 said:Most people probably assume that if they pass away, doctors will just finish them off to get at their organs.

I don't think that; I know it isn't true. I’ve had conversations with professionals in the field—I won't name names or specific hospitals here—about how being an organ donor is a noble thing to do and how great it is to register ahead of time...
I completely changed my mind after having those talks.

So, here’s someone who hasn't had a single issue with her Celesta 🙂 for five years straight now. Honestly, I can tell you exactly what hour my period is going to hit; it’s shorter, and the pain is basically non-existent. She’s still the exact same woman I fell for—same breasts, same moods—though I have put on a little weight myself, if only because of all the snacking 😉...

electricdriver78 said:The product descriptions for these pills are written so clearly that they explicitly state they aren't meant for contraception—you know, those official blurbs pharmaceutical companies hand out to doctors. But honestly? They couldn't care less. 😠

I’ve never actually used these pills myself, so I have to ask: does the packaging really state that they aren't for contraception?
If that’s the case, then anyone who tries to pass off this thing as a contraceptive is a complete idiot. 😠 😢

Joseph Jones85 said:1. For a chart like this to actually mean anything, you’d need to specify the exact variety of potato being used. I'm fairly certain nutrient density varies significantly from one cultivar to the next.

2. And—perhaps most importantly— at what specific stage were these measurements taken? Are we talking about raw potatoes? If so, was that immediately after harvest, or after they sat in storage for a few days? Because if they've been sitting around, the profile changes. Or are we looking at processed data?

3. Personally, I think providing data for a raw food that isn't even safe to eat raw is pretty pointless.

4. To be blunt, I find charts like these incredibly unreliable. Honestly, anyone with even a basic grasp of measurement standards would probably agree with me.

It really depends on what you intend to use the table for. If it’s just meant to be a rough guide, it serves a purpose:

1. I don't see why it's strictly necessary. They list an average amount per mass. My guess is that the variation in concentration across different potato varieties falls within a standard deviation.

2. Now, that second point would be useful and interesting. I assume the measurement process was standardized, but it would certainly be better if the protocol was explicitly stated. There has to be a set timeframe involved so that all these tables can actually be compared against one another.

3. I think that's a handy piece of info because it helps people compare how different preparation methods affect nutrient concentration. It’s not mandatory, though, I'll give you that.

4. Look, I’m constantly measuring things myself. 🙂
This is a layman's table. You can't publish something like this and call it "scientific," but it still has its uses. If you added a few more details—like the specific protocol, the number of samples, the standard deviation, etc.—it would definitely be more reliable.

ljutika said:Here's the link:
http://food.com/en/vegetables/potato.htm

I think these charts look fine to me.

darkbison81 said:I still lean toward the idea that a varied diet provides the best results when it comes to dosage, synergy, and overall efficacy. Cooking doesn't just wipe everything out. It might not even necessarily boost absorption, but it's certainly not a total loss.

I'm with you on that. I feel like I've been rambling for two pages just trying to get this point across.😉

You can't actually destroy everything—that's basically just the law of conservation of mass and energy 😁—it's just that certain substances can be broken down in significant amounts. Honestly, I don't have any hard data on the exact amount of vitc left in a baked potato...

From what I gather, those nutritional charts—assuming they’re official, like something issued by the American Diabetes Association or a similar body—are generally pretty reliable since they're based on actual experimental data. That said, I have my doubts about how much Vitamin C actually survives any kind of thermal processing. VitC is notoriously finicky; once you hit it with heat or even just expose it to air, it starts oxidizing and breaking down fast.
I'm also not entirely sure if iron deficiency actually manifests in your nails. Besides, as far as I know, most fruit isn't exactly a powerhouse when it comes to iron content...

Princess said:Man, you guys really went at it with this thread. 😉

I don’t want to get dragged into a massive debate right now because I’m short on time, but I did want to ask (darkbison81, since I see you're lurking 😉 though everyone else is more than welcome to chime in, of course 🙂 ) about creams containing Q10. They market all of them as proven solutions for fighting wrinkles.

I remember reading somewhere in a mainstream health magazine that once a wrinkle actually forms, there's no "curing" it or making it disappear. You can tighten the skin with a facelift, sure, but creams are basically just there to stop things from getting deeper. On the other hand, the beauty industry keeps bombarding us with this Q10 stuff like it's some kind of magic fountain of youth. 😕

I honestly don't know what to make of it all.

You know, 😉 the answer is actually right there in your own post.

The "clinical tests" used to prove how effective skincare products are are such a joke that all I can do is laugh at the ads ("65% fewer wrinkles, 43.5% more elasticity, 78% more hydration" 😁 😁 😁 ). Anyone who has ever conducted a real experiment or actual research knows those numbers are nothing more than a punchline. 😉

What part am I not getting? This:

Joseph Jones85 said:Urban smog contains oxygen, sure, but it’s also packed with other junk that makes cellular oxidation a death sentence for the cell.
Is that clear enough for you now?

Not really. Where is the explanation for this claim (for the second time)?
Which specific substances are you referring to? What are their concentrations? What are their intracellular concentrations? And what exactly is the mechanism by which these substances interfere with oxygen oxidation?
This is what I asked...

Oxidation is always detrimental to a cell, yet it's absolutely necessary for aerobes. I'm looking for specific answers to the questions I laid out above.

By the way, I'm not even going to bother debating antioxidants, because they don't exist. There are only oxidants and reductants.🙂
And by the way, I didn't ask a single thing about reductants, thanks much.🙂

Joseph Jones85 said:1. Most doctors at our medical schools barely touch on nutrition, maybe one elective course at most if you're lucky. When it comes to vitamins, their knowledge is basically zero. Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about gets lumped into the "alternative medicine" crowd immediately. So, it’s hardly a shock that nobody warned him that vitamins could be harmful—most of them don't even realize vitamins are necessary, let alone that they can be toxic in certain doses.

2. Because of pollution, oxidative processes happen faster and more uncontrollably within our cells.

1. Yeah, true, but even top-tier doctors globally aren't any better. This specific case didn't even happen here in the States... I'm not pointing fingers at local doctors specifically. It's just that people broadly know nothing about vitamins, and whatever little info they do have comes from TV commercials. That’s exactly why I bother writing stuff here...

2. I don't follow. Where's the proof?
Didn't we already establish that oxidation is caused by oxygen? What does urban smog have to do with oxidation? (I mean, it affects everything else, but specifically oxidation?)

Joseph Jones85 said:(And before anyone gets defensive, I’m not selling any supplements here—this isn't some sales pitch 😁)

I wouldn't call myself a fanatic either. 😉 Actually, since I'm a total sucker for molecular science, I have a genuine appreciation for chemicals in all their various forms, smells, colors, and effects. 😁
But over time, I’ve noticed this weird split in how people act: on one hand, you have people who are terrified of swallowing a single pill, and on the other, you have people popping them like they're candy. When it comes to vitamins specifically, there's this pervasive idea that they're purely beneficial and that more is always better. I just want to point out that common sense and a healthy dose of caution should always come first.

If you need proof that vitamins won't kill most people: meet a former contestant (not a winner, let's be real) in a college competition titled "Who Can Tolerate the Highest Dose of Vitamin C." 😁
I think I've learned my lesson since then. 🙄

Joseph Jones85 said:1. Taking 6g is actually a pretty massive dose. If you're doing that over a longer stretch—say, more than two or three months—you're going to run into digestive issues because vitamin C is an acid, after all. That’s why higher doses are usually administered intravenously when they're absolutely necessary.

2. The issue isn't the oxygen in the air; it's how the body's cells react to certain processes... it's a bit of a longer explanation.

It's not like you need to stop breathing just to slow down cellular oxidation. 😉

1. Exactly, that's my whole point. Nobody ever tells people that vitamins can actually be harmful. All they hear is how "healthy" and "good" they are. My entire argument here is to show that there is no such thing as a miracle chemical and that everything carries some level of risk. By the way, the individual in question was getting regular checkups, and his doctors never once warned him, even though they were fully aware of how obsessed he was with health and living a "clean" lifestyle.

2. Regarding that oxygen comment, I was responding to the idea that people in cities need more specific vitamins (I assumed you meant reducing oxidative stress, since you didn't specify which ones you were talking about). 😉

And obviously, I don't need to stop breathing. It would be enough to just stop moving altogether. 🙂

Joseph Jones85 said:I mean, look at the name itself—it’s pretty self-explanatory. Oxygen is an oxidant, plain and simple.

I don't quite follow what you're asking. 😕

So, what you're saying is that the concentration stays exactly the same whether you're in the middle of downtown Chicago, stuck on some remote mountain trail, or out in the middle of nowhere. It’s uniform everywhere. 😉 If I recall correctly, nitrogen makes up about 21% of our atmosphere...

So, what you're saying is that people living in the city don't actually have an increased need for antioxidants?

Joseph Jones85 said:Just so I’m being clear and not vague, when I say an "extreme" dose, I'm talking about 15 grams or more—which is basically 25 times higher than what you actually need.

You really have to be careful (and precise) when you start throwing around conclusions about "overdosing" or "excessive" amounts. 😉

In the specific case I was looking at, it was under 6 grams a day, spread out over several years (typical behavior for a true pill addict like 😉 me). Vis and I are on the same page here: dosage matters. 😉

Joseph Jones85 said:Furthermore, people living in major metropolitan areas are breathing in pretty nasty air, which naturally ramps up the need for certain vitamins.

But honestly, isn't oxygen itself the most powerful oxidant we deal with on a daily basis?

Joseph Jones85 said:To be honest, I don't know a single person who eats perfectly healthy, not even the ones who actually try.

Look, I’m being real here—I don't know anyone whose daily nutritional needs are so specific that I could actually judge whether they're eating "right" or not.🙂 For most of us, our daily food intake is basically just about maintaining a certain pool of chemicals in our system.

Joseph Jones85 said:So go ahead—feel free to load up on vitamins if you want. Just take them. 🙂

The reality is, anything your body metabolizes and tries to flush out has to pass through your liver and kidneys. Your hepatocytes and nephrons aren't exactly going to be thanking you for following that advice. 😉

Let me give you an example: overdosing on Vitamin C can actually lead to liver cirrhosis. And I’m not just talking about hitting saturation levels; the issue is also about how the body excretes it. People rarely account for the metabolic toll of clearing all those excess nutrients...

Anyway, everyone has their own perspective on this, and look, I'm certainly no nutrition expert.

silentpanther15 said:So, how many healthy people who lead super active lives and are in peak physical condition actually need supplements? Or if they do, which ones even make sense?
(And I’m not talking about bodybuilding gear or therapeutic stuff...)

If you're a healthy young person eating a balanced diet and living a standard lifestyle, my take is that you don't need supplements at all. Everything a human being needs to thrive can be found in sufficient amounts through a varied diet—think fresh fruits and veggies, different types of meat, and dairy products.

If you smoke or push yourself extremely hard with intense sports, you're oxidizing more than some forest creature (Jesus, I sound like a damn zoologist 🙄), so you might want to bring some antioxidants into the mix (Vitamin E is decent enough) along with Vitamin C.
Personally, I can't stand milk, so I think it makes sense to take calcium occasionally (especially since women are particularly prone to losing bone density).
B-complex vitamins are in beer, various phenols are in wine, minerals are in sparkling water, Vitamin K does wonders for our digestive systems, Vitamin A is in carrots, Vitamin C is in citrus, peppers, kiwi... everything is out there somewhere.

If you're really unsure, I don't think there's any harm in taking a multivitamin/mineral tablet once every couple of days.

Of course, this is just my subjective opinion since I'm neither a doctor nor a nutritionist.

Grace Baker22 said:At this point, we're basically just looking at clever marketing disguised as dietary supplements. There’s zero strict oversight, and you can't really trust the quality or even if the active ingredients are actually present in the amounts they claim.

Thanks for the extra insight, Grace. 🙂
If you happen to be out shopping, see if you can spot any labels on those bottles that specify the hormone source or the actual concentration levels...