Originally Posted by fuji
"I have little direct data to support this
Yeah giving nutrients to older nutrient deprived individuals will probably make them feel better. 35mg per kg, 3150mg of calcium do not want. Does not state how much test increase, 5ng more from increased calories of taking more calcium? I like how angry you get on this part of the forum, you can insult my intelligence all you want, I still go to the best school in the world for econ.
Right, hence the word "theory" in the title of his post. He's extrapolating from other data; he's not just making things up because it sounds good. He also makes this prediction:
Prediction: we will find, over the coming decades that the hundreds/thousands of co-factors, etc found in whole foods make the nutrients in them work better which is why pills do little and food does much.
Just because something hasn't been proven in every instance imaginable doesn't make it broscience.
You said nutrients in drinks are not the same as nutrients from food, implies the protein from my whey is not the same as protein from a steak or something.
Uh, it's not. Hell, the nutrients from eggs aren't the same as the nutrients from beef aren't the same as the nutrients from broccoli. The comment that you called broscience wasn't even addressing the idea that naturally-ocurring forms of nutrients are better
than those derived from supplements (which they very likely are, and in some cases, such as vitamin e, demonstrably are), it was simply saying that they're not the same
(which they irrefutably aren't).
Oh you go to a top-ranked school for econ? As fascinating as that fact is, it's relevance to this discussion is precisely zero.
And I'm not angry, I'm just busting your balls, so don't take it personally.