I wish you quoted my text and responded in that form, would be a hell of a lot easier to respond and argument with.
I'm not positing the irrelevance of clinical data, and neither am I recommending this as some sort of canonical approach towards medicine. I'm merely saying, to the adventurous and those interested, try something out before you make statements on it's efficacy on your own body. You cannot cite clinical data for an outlying population.
But I can cite that most people are not outliers, even if I operate under the assumption that there IS an efficacy for a given substance for some minute amount of people. That's a huge assumption. The reason I would bring up such a potentially irrelevant argument is simple: on the internet, you hear anecdotes. Anecdotes provide effects without variables.
Wut? With that said, if someone were really motivated to perfecting their cognitive processes or this process, wouldn't you want to inform them?
If there was evidence to support it, yes, so long as the side effects were also known and explained. I understand the prescription of a pharmacological agent without studies or FDA approval errs the line of ethics, however, this is not in my control
Just because you have little to no responsibility for your actions since you don't have a medical license doesn't mean that you lack the ability to control your own support of putting things into people's bodies with no real understanding of what will happen.. I'm trying to inform someone of my own findings in such endeavors and to explain my experiences to them. Effects vary with respect to a plethora of variables, hidden and elucidated. Be aware of them, and be knowledgeable. No compound is ineffective in a vacuum.
I'm not entirely sure that I can even comprehend what you are saying here, but it sounds to me that you are saying something along the lines of some multiple universes version of Schrodinger's cat. One can't tell if the cat is alive or dead, because both are true until you open the box.
So you are arguing that, even though thousands of cats have been dead when the box was opened and no cats were alive in our reality, since theoretically the cat could be alive we should advocate adventurous people putting cats in boxes because you still believe that the cat may believe one of these times, regardless of the number of cats that need to be sacrificed to make it happen.
With regards to your "prove it please" statement... What compound's efficacy do you wish me research by crawling through PubMed and linking you reviews along with potential important experiments to that subset of research?
All of them before you start advocating them based on internet anecdotes. What will your ultimate response be? What if there were no clinical trials?
Then we shouldn't advocate them until there are. Last time I checked, science is a process of elimination of hypothesis, not a proof for a concrete nature of things. This is not mathematics. Stating the status of the research and attacking it based off of that will bring nothing to fruition
It will demonstrate the precarious nature of using untested supplements. With that said, I hope you understand the nature of my comments and know that I do understand that fact that clinical trials with a certain drug shows amelioration of a condition. I'm merely commenting that you can't disprove a hypothesis without an experiment,
which is why we shouldn' act upon a hypothesis without experiment, because you can't support one without an experiment eitherand not on conjectures based off what subject the compound is being tested on (human versus mice) without good reason.
Are you sure that you aren't arguing against your own view point? If a person wants to try it, they should inform themselves of the risk.
True, but anyone advocating the usage of something should be responsible enough to cite the risks, if any are known, and otherwise cite that the risks aren't known. I am not responsible for other people's endeavors, when discussing my anecdotal experiences.
You aren't legally, but you should take upon that responsibility. You won't have a license very long if you think that way as a physician, at any rate.
"However, tyrosine is certainly not one of those things unless you are severely malnourished..."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938407001722
This was a test of sugar vs protein. The control is bogus because of the fact that it is an entirely different substance being given, not a non-tyrosine containing protein formula. Further, this wasn't a supplement, by the very admission of the study: "It must be stressed that L-tyrosine was not supplemented in pure form but in protein-rich powder, and the placebo was not a real placebo administration. PROTIFAR "
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923098001634
This is an extremely high stress situation, but again the placebo is crap because it is AA/protein + Carbs vs Carbohydrates alone. It also is more cognitive than performance enhancing. Better reaction time doesn't mean they are going to get more buff or be able to run further, even if this study had a legit control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12381742
This one argues against tyrosine, it says there was no difference.
"Unless all you are eating is dextrose, AAs, short chain fatty acids, and multivitamins, chances are that you are getting more than enough of everything when you take a multivitamin."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=high+dose+vitamin+beneficial&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Great, an entire search engine full of multivit related studies. The one that caught my eye was the metanalysis right on the front page that suggests that high vit levels cause toxicity. Gasp. The others that I read the title of were all high stress conditions: uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, burns, etc.
Research needs to be done to address these things.
I agree. Some stuff obviously leads to no benefit. Some stuff does. Overall, I think nutrition needs to be addressed on a case by case basis.
Absolutely, using evidence based decision making.
Thanks for your response.
My pleasure
