Dietary Supplements

Pallas said:Oh sure, you clearly know way more about genetics than Dr. Radman does... 🙄

If you’ve got a bit of intuition and know how to read between the lines, it’s pretty obvious this whole piece was commissioned... just look at the tone and the way the arguments are framed. It’s a joke, honestly. Not journalism. I actually spoke with someone who has a much better handle on Radman’s actual position, and let's just say he has a vested interest in this narrative. There is no way a serious scientist would pen something this amateurish... he clearly got paid for it. But what really bugs me is why they only published Radman's take. Why hasn't Jost shared his perspective on this? You see some nutritionist writing about Radman and Jost as if they’re these two opposing experts, but then I go looking for Jost's response and—nothing. It’s just not there. It makes you wonder... Does the name Monsanto ring a bell? They produce about 80% of the GMO seeds out there. And for those who aren't aware, Monsanto also produces aspartame, which should have NEVER been approved for use in the first place... but hey, money talks, right? I’m not even talking about GMO food here. I’m talking about the lies, the corruption, and the monopolies. It’s wild how Americans are actually horrified that Europe won't touch GMO crops...

Casey Palmer5 said:Look, I get it. Organic food is hands down the best way to go, but let’s be real... most people can't exactly drop that kind of cash on every grocery run these days. If it were up to me? I’d honestly take GMOs over eating stuff that's basically soaked in pesticides... turns out being healthy is getting pretty expensive...

Just another one of those lies... people claim GMO plants get sprayed just as much, if not even more, than the conventional stuff. Honestly, I don't care what Monsanto tries to tell us... it’s what the farmers on the ground are actually saying that matters... 😉 There’s way too much of this stuff floating around online anyway... I don't even want to bother dropping links here...

placidjackal97 said:Hmm... what exactly are my batteries burning through when they need this much fuel?

I feel like I've always eaten a lot. It’s not necessarily about the volume, but the frequency... I'm snacking every two hours, even if it's just some yogurt.

And I'll grab a candy bar here and there between breakfast and lunch.😁

Jimmy, I didn't quite catch that—my brain's been a bit foggy lately. Can you clarify?🙂

Your metabolism ramps up by about 15-20% after every meal, which means frequent snacking keeps that metabolic engine running constantly. Think of it this way: someone who eats nothing until 4 AM and then absolutely gorges themselves is going to pack on a gut way faster than someone eating that same amount of food split into three steady meals. It's the same logic used in nutrition planning; people trying to gain weight are often told to eat 3 or 4 large meals rather than constant small snacks, while those looking to lose weight or maintain their current size are advised to stick to smaller, controlled portions more frequently.

4 AM means four in the morning—you probably meant 4 PM, or 16:00 if we were being all formal about it...

Lisa Ortiz17 said:Just fruit. For example, this morning: I squeezed two oranges right when I woke up, then grabbed a banana on my way out, and by the time I got to work, I had half a pineapple, a banana, and a tangerine... basically snacking on that until lunch. Pretty much every day like that... 🙂

Man, I wish I could do that, but it’s just not worth the money. Plus, if I only ate fruit, I’d be starving in like twenty minutes.
For me, nothing beats sugar-free muesli, maybe a slice of toast with honey, and a cup of skim milk. I can seriously eat a ton in the morning, but because of that, I never touch anything after 6 PM.

George Bailey2 said:Your metabolism jumps by about 15-20% after you eat—so basically, eating more frequently keeps things moving faster. It’s the same reason someone who fasts until 4 AM and then absolutely demolishes a massive meal will end up with a gut faster than someone eating those same calories spread over three meals. It's why people trying to bulk up are told to go for 3 or 4 big meals rather than 6 tiny snacks, while those looking to slim down or just maintain weight are usually advised to stick to smaller, more frequent portions.

well, there goes the secret to my physique-- 😉

J-C said:I was talking to a friend yesterday who weighs about 250 lbs, and I tried to explain that you can't just starve yourself to drop 90 pounds. There’s a massive risk of wrecking your body that way because you end up stripping away all your essential minerals and vitamins.

Starvation isn't the answer. Unless you're under strict medical supervision, no restrictive diet should ever dip below 1,200 calories. And honestly, those should be spread out over five or six small meals. Starving yourself just damages your system and wrecks your metabolism; the second you stop, the weight just crawls right back on. The whole point of a dietary change should be to fix your eating habits and regulate your metabolism. That's the only way you'll actually see results.
In my opinion, the most effective approach is the ADA diet used by diabetics. It's easy to follow, the food isn't monotonous, and frankly, it’s a lifestyle everyone should probably adopt for their daily lives...

As for this idea of "healthy eating," it doesn't really exist. Everything is essentially toxic if you look at it closely enough. It's all about the dosage—that's the difference between a nutrient and a poison. Someone once said that—my memory isn't what it used to be—but it's the truth.

Then there's the endless debate over white bread versus whole grain... You either eat pure starch, or you eat starch paired with minerals and vitamins, alongside whatever pesticides were left on the grain. Which one is better? To me, they both seem equally problematic, so I suppose it's just a matter of personal choice...

Lisa Ortiz17 said:just fruit. for example this morning: as soon as I woke up, I squeezed out two oranges, then grabbed a banana on my way out, and by the time I got to work, I'd had half a pineapple, a banana, and a tangerine... basically until lunch. That's pretty much my daily routine 🙂

And honestly, that’s probably the most effective way to avoid vitamin deficiencies.
Did you know that eating fruit as a dessert is actually a mistake? You really should be having your fruit first thing in the morning on an empty stomach if you want to actually absorb all those vitamins 🙂

Of course, I don't follow that advice—I just drown myself in coffee every morning—but that's how it's supposed to be done 🙂

J-C said:Now she’s suddenly decided to eat healthy after spending years eating whatever she wanted. I highly doubt her little method is actually going to work. She’s too stubborn, and honestly, too cheap to drop a few hundred bucks on actual help to get herself back in shape. If she just listened to me, she might actually lose the weight and find a new husband...

I agree that your friend could benefit from spending a couple hundred dollars to lose weight, but not on some "magic formula" meant to replace food and melt fat away. She should be buying a decent pair of running shoes and some workout gear instead.
If she’s truly committed to healthy eating, the smartest move would be picking up an ADA-approved diet plan, playing around with meal combinations, and starting to run or join a gym. Her approach actually sounds more reasonable than your idea of starving herself... 🙄

The age-old debate about white bread versus whole grain... It basically boils down to this: you’re either eating pure starch, or you’re eating starch paired with minerals and vitamins—along with whatever pesticides are still clinging to the grain. Which one is better? Honestly, they both seem pretty lousy to me—so, you know, pick your poison.

provided the seeds weren't soaked in pesticides. Some people actually grow stuff without them.

That's what they call organic food.

As for fruit, I’ve had this little morning ritual for years—before I even head to the bathroom—where I eat one crisp, crunchy apple and have a small serving of yogurt. Just enough to wake me up before my actual breakfast about half an hour later.

I should mention—my breakfast usually happens around 8:30 AM, maybe 9:00—or closer to 10:00 on the weekends. I used to wake up much earlier, but now I make sure to stay awake and hungry for at least an hour before I finally eat. 😁

J-C said:She’s looking for something to flush all those toxins out of her system, which apparently weighs about thirty pounds. So, she needs some kind of specialized miracle product for that.

Well, that "specialized product" is actually just water. 🙂
Just increase her daily intake. She'll be heading to the restroom more often, the toxins will get filtered, and they'll pass right through her. And the best part? Water is still available to everyone, right at your fingertips...🙂

placidjackal97 said:if the seeds were treated with pesticides. There are some that aren't.

That’s what we call organic food.

Look, "organic" implies a certain standard. In areas where organic farming actually happens, you shouldn't have any history of conventional farming nearby. You shouldn't have runoff from neighboring fields leaching pesticides into the soil, no heavy traffic nearby, and the air quality over those fields should be pristine enough that rain isn't washing chemicals or heavy metals onto the land...
I’m not sure if that’s actually realistic, but I highly doubt it...

dustycanyon6 said:If you have enough common sense to read between the lines, it’s incredibly obvious this whole thing was a paid hit job—just look at the tone and the way the arguments are framed. It’s a joke, not actual journalism. I actually spoke with someone who has a much better handle on Dr. Radman’s situation, and they pointed out he stands to gain quite a bit from this. You won't find a single serious scientist writing such a lame, unprofessional piece unless there's money involved... So, I can't help but wonder why only Radman's side is being aired. Why hasn't Jost shared his perspective? This nutritionist guy writes about Radman and Jost as if they’re total opposites, but when I go looking for Jost’s response to Radman's piece, it’s nowhere to be found!? I think we all know why that is. Monsanto—does that ring a bell? That company produces about 80% of the GMO seeds out there. And for those who aren't aware, Monsanto also makes aspartame, which should NEVER have been approved for use (but hey, everything is possible if you have enough cash!). I’m not even talking about GMO food right now; I’m talking about outright lies, corruption, and monopolies. Americans are honestly appalled that Europe is resisting GMO crops.

Here’s another lie for you: GMO plants get sprayed with pesticides just as much as, if not more than, conventionally grown ones. It doesn't matter what Monsanto claims; listen to what the farmers are saying instead. 😉 There's plenty of info on this online, so I won't dump a bunch of links here.

Look, it’s all just politics. I won't get into whether the article was bought or not, but it definitely aligns with the recent analyses of products currently hitting our markets. It's well known that Radman works closely with the government, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was written purely for his own interests.

As for the spraying part, I'm not so sure. Isn't the whole point that these plants are genetically resistant to pests, so they don't actually *need* as much chemical treatment during growth? Now, I'm definitely no agronomist, but that sounds logical to me. It would be great if someone with some actual expertise could weigh in on this...

Bryan Murphy84 said:It's organic food... Like, in those areas where they grow organic crops, there was never any non-organic farming before—so there isn't any runoff from nearby fields washing pesticides into the soil, no proximity to heavy traffic, and the air over those fields is so clean that rain doesn't even carry traces of pesticides or heavy metals onto the organic soil.
I mean, I don't know if that’s actually possible—it sounds a bit too good to be true to me.

Look, we aren't claiming this is 100% pure, flawless food.

We're talking about food grown without pesticides which—take yogurt, for example, as a finished product—doesn't have artificial colors or preservatives and stuff like that. It just means it's less harmful to your body.

Sure, there are no cars nearby. As for the rest, I can't say for certain. That's why I'm not calling it "perfect" food—just better. 😉

From what I understand, in Germany, there's a rule that for a tomato to be labeled organic, the soil hasn't been treated with chemicals for at least ten years.

Which is still something—compared to those spray-on tomatoes you grab at the supermarket.

placidjackal97 said:We weren't talking about some 100% pure, flawless food.

What we mean is food grown without pesticides which—take yogurt, for example, where the end product lacks artificial colors, preservatives, or fake flavors—is inherently less harmful to the body.

I can't speak for cars, but for everything else, I'm not making claims of perfection. Just that it's better. 😉

From what I know, there's a rule in Germany regarding cultivation: for a tomato to qualify, the soil shouldn't have been treated with chemicals for at least ten years.

Which is still something, compared to those spray-on tomatoes you just shove in your mouth.

I hadn't heard about that ten-year rule, thanks for the heads up..
That said, I work at an agency where food safety is strictly monitored, and we’ve done several training exercises both in college and on the job... Essentially, specifically regarding tomatoes 😁 and the pesticide residue found in washed versus unwashed produce. In theory, washing produce thoroughly under running water removes a significant portion. A bit remains, obviously, but it falls well below the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) 😁 So, I wouldn't necessarily say one is vastly superior to the other; the damage is roughly equal, unless we're talking about specific organic cultivation 😉

To be honest, toxins accumulate in the body throughout your entire life. If a certain food item contains trace amounts of pesticides, heavy metals, or antibiotics, nothing catastrophic is going to happen to you immediately. It's a cumulative effect. However, the modern human lifespan is far too short to actually see those effects manifest; if it were otherwise, we’d probably be much more careful... about ourselves and Nature...

Alright then, feel free to give me a serious lesson here 🙂

I've heard that most of the chemicals actually settle right in the skin—so some people go as far as peeling their tomatoes and apples just to avoid them.

Personally, I'm all about eating both with the skin on.

placidjackal97 said:Fine then, why don't you give me a serious lesson on this... 🙂

I’ve heard that most of the chemicals stay concentrated right in the skin, which is why some people peel their tomatoes and apples and such. Just to be safe.

Personally, I love eating both with the skin on.

People who peel everything are actually missing out, since the skin holds all those pigments—like lycopene and flavonoids—that are actually good for you. Personally, I eat my fruits and veggies with the skin on, provided they've been thoroughly rinsed under running water first. Some pesticides get washed by rain into the soil, some get absorbed into the skin, and some just sit on the surface. A good wash gets rid of the surface stuff. As for the part that’s already soaked into the fruit? You might as well just accept it... 😉.

Besides, everyone should probably be drinking more water daily. It's the best way to flush toxins out of your system.

P.S. We really ought to be worrying more about how much pesticide ends up in our wastewater from all that washing, but I guess we'll leave that to the people who care about that (or rather, don't)... 😢

rustymoose54 said:4 AM is four in the morning. You probably meant 4 PM, or 16:00 in military time.

Exactly, PM. My bad on the mistake—that's just what happens when I'm sitting here typing posts late at night after a grueling day.

Honestly, everyone should be drinking as much water as possible every day. It’s easily the best way to flush toxins out of your system.

👍

Aside from the fact that I tend to eat a lot—and drink plenty of water so there's no confusion 😁—I hit about 3 liters a day.

Some people around me actually got worried, so I went in for a bunch of tests just to make sure my kidneys weren't acting up from all the hydration 🙄

P.S. We really ought to be more concerned about the amount of pesticides washing into our wastewater, but I guess we'll leave that to the people who care (or don't) about that sort of thing.

I'm with you on that. In fact, part of that is actually what I've been focusing on lately.

It's a total disaster—we're basically destroying the few birds we have left.

placidjackal97 said:It’s an absolute disaster. We’re basically wiping out what little wildlife we have left...

I have to admit, I found the whole concept of wastewater biofiltration pretty fascinating. But my job is such that if I even suggested we pivot toward something like that, I’d probably end up getting canned by 😢
...

Honestly, the only way to make a dent is to hit those massive corporations right where it hurts—their wallets (they call it an eco-tax here)

Some people just don't get it any other way, unfortunately

My team is actually pretty well-rounded—we’ve got lawyers, economists, sociologists (that's me), and even a chemist

The big issue, though, is that wastewater isn't being treated nearly enough—again, we need to tax industry heavily since they're the biggest contributors—and even our remaining drinking water sources won't last forever. Between saltwater intrusion and cities literally sinking (look at Mexico, for instance), things are getting dicey
But anyway, I totally veered off track—sorry, everyone😳