Duncan_Idaho wrote:VeganEssentials, all you said can be applied to your opinion as well. The fact that some studies support something does not mean that it is an established fact. The Earth was flat before the 16th century and that was a fact you could not argue with. You cannot tolerate a high carb diet and no matter how convinced I am in its virtues I will not try to tell you that your body is wrong or that the way you take carbs is wrong. Maybe it simply doesn't work with you. I've read studies that soy is good and that soy is bad. Which ones are true? All scientific research is dependent on the circumstances under which it was conducted. Therefore most research on pubmed.org says 'Mice show such reactions when treated with XXX in YYY conditions". Science does not jump to generalized conclusions. Popular science does. So just lay out your facts and the people will draw conclusions from them.
Here's the root with this - I'm not debating whether or not someone CAN do well on a diet like 80/10/10 - obviously, some of you do, and that's why I keep saying over and over again "More power to you if it works for you". The point I had in all of this is that it WON'T be optimal for everyone, and that seemed to be really hard for some people to accept. Paige clearly showed that she was not fairng well on it, and what happens? Nobody says to her "Maybe it isn't meant for your body", but instead it turned into making every excuse for why she wasn't feeling great on it and what she needed to change to "fix" the problem. She was treated as if it were simply her negligence in eating correctly that was the cause when it could well be that she'll never adapt to it without jeopardizing her health (yes, there is potential that such a purportedly "healthy" diet could in fact deteriorate someone's health if they cannot adapt to it). But god forbid someone like myself pointed out that maybe for some people it is a shitty diet, because nobody could seem to accept that not everything works for everybody the same. And here we are....
You'll always hear me say that people need to experiment, experiment, experiment with their diet and training, I shudder when people think there's only one way to get where you want to go. HOWEVER....there's a big difference between saying "I read soy is good, then I read soy is bad" and and comparing it to fact that if you don't get enough B-12 for years, you're pretty well assured of a deficiency over time that could be debilitating. For some people, soy is good. For others, soy is bad. That's the way it goes, it isn't a black and white issue. BUT, for EVERYONE, a B-12 deficiency is bad, and I'd like to see proof that it could be beneficial if anyone would like to hear myself and others stop insisting it should be a concern. And, to alleviate this concern, what does it take? A tiny tablet popped under the tongue maybe once or twice a week. The harsh attitude against a tiny proactive measure we talk about isn't because we've got some vested interest in convincing anti-supplement people to fold on their beliefs. It's because we'd like to see you all HEALTHY - just because you may be now does NOT mean it can't come back to haunt you later if left unchecked. Believe me, I couldn't care less if some of the people who vehemently defend 80/10/10 want to see my head on a stake after what I've said, I still want to see the best for everyone and that they have OPTIMAL health, not just that they're keeping their fingers crossed that they'll be okay in the long run.
It always feels to me like when you see a mother trying to spoon feed an infant who just won't accept that it's time to eat - no matter how much it's for the good of everyone to hear it, some people thrive on defiance, I just can't figure out why else anyone would battle the B-12 issue so hard. Even if you don't want to accept it as absolute fact that you should be taking in some additional B-12 to avoid a deficiency, there's a whole lot more science out there to show in favor of it than there are of people saying that you don't need to worry about it. What astounds me the most about it is, there's not even an ethical position to take against B-12 supplementation, it's purely the "I'll show you all, I'll never get sick from it!" attitude that I keep hearing, as if there's something to prove by not taking a simple measure to protect one's health. That, in and of itself, contradicts 2097's notions of "wisdom" quite well, avoiding the majority of fact in order to say "I know better than everyone else" - that's pure EGO
, definitely not wisdom. Sadly, some people are confused because their ego exceeds their wisdom, and they're usually the last ones to find that out.
I'll gladly side with the overwhelming majority who have spent their lives studying such issues, than hope and pray that the fraction who disagree are actually the ones who know what they're talking about. It isn't as if we've been saying to swallow a cyanide capsule each day in hopes of preventing a deficiency here, it's just B-12...it's just B-12...it's just B-12....
Here's the final point that should close this whole discussion out, though I'm expecting someone to try and work around it and prove it incorrect:
By my suggesting that everyone take a B-12 supplement from time to time, it isn't doing damage to the health of those who choose to listen. Worst case is that they already have adequate levels and it doesn't give them additional benefit, but they are "insured" against deficiency nonetheless. HOWEVER....if you tell people NOT to worry about it and not to supplement, it won't improve their health any, and it may well lead to a decline and illness in the long run. Which one is more "wise" to follow? It really isn't that hard to figure out.
"A 'hardgainer' is merely someone who hasn't bothered to try enough different training methods to learn what is actually right for their own damned body." - anonymous