Argument for Supplements.

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Argument for Supplements.

Postby DenverGuy » Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:25 pm

Let me start by saying that I am mostly AGAINST supplements (except vitamin B12). If you eat right you shouldn't need them. But the other day I saw someone saying that they are needed because the soil that most plants are grown in has become depleted, and fruits and vegetables don't have what we need.
I don't think that's true. Or is it?
Any thoughts? I'd like to respond to them with an informed response.
Thanks.
DenverGuy
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:24 pm


Re: Argument for Supplements.

Postby DenverGuy » Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:03 pm

Excellent - thanks.

Then I see things like this: https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/ ... le-p15.xml

"DISCUSSION
The evidence for nutrient declines began to accumulate in the 1940s with observations of (environmental) dilution effects on minerals in many foods and diverse other plants. Recent studies of historical nutrient content data for fruits and vegetables spanning 50 to 70 years show apparent median declines of 5% to 40% or more in minerals, vitamins, and protein in groups of foods, especially in vegetables."
DenverGuy
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:24 pm

Re: Argument for Supplements.

Postby michaelswarm » Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:59 am

Whether soil and nutrient claims are true or not, I think not relevant to issue of health or disease.

Evidence says disease caused by not eating vegetables (broadly all starches, fruits and vegetables), and cured by simply eating them, whether conventional or organic. Both Ornish and Esselstyn patients used ordinary supermarket produce.

Only if I see WFPB patients developing nutrient deficiencies, not curing their chronic disease, would I be concerned.

And even then, the correct answer would probably be farming practices, not supplements. Choose organic or ultra organic is matter of personal choice. Probably better for health, farmers and planet. But no need to make lifestyle harder than it needs to be.
User avatar
michaelswarm
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: Traveling Mexico and United States

Re: Argument for Supplements.

Postby DenverGuy » Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:18 pm

Of course health and disease aren't issues, although some of their causes are. They will always be debated. I would never worry about plants having fewer nutrients - if that's even true.
And if someone thinks they are not getting the right nutrients, blindly taking supplements can't be the answer. In my mind it would make more sense and see what you're low on and trying to fix that by adjusting one's (plant-based) diet.
DenverGuy
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:24 pm

Re: Argument for Supplements.

Postby michaelswarm » Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:34 pm

Exactly. If you think plant nutrients are low, then eat even more plants.
Most people should be eating way more whole plant foods anyways. Check grams of fiber in diet.
If symptoms of deficiency, check levels, and adjust with foods, supplements or both.
User avatar
michaelswarm
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: Traveling Mexico and United States

Re: Argument for Supplements.

Postby Dougalling2 » Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:50 pm

It is true that plants have fewer nutrients than they did in the past.
It is true that plants still have enough nutrients for our health.
If plants did not have enough nutrients in them, then all our medical exams would
show that we are nutrient deficient. We would also all be feeling pretty lousy.
Dougalling2
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2021 6:01 pm


Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.