Posted by Larry Hoover on March 26, 2007, at 11:50:09
In reply to Re: correction, posted by Klavot on March 26, 2007, at 10:48:10
> Medical science vilifies alternative medicine because it is unscientific. As and when alternative practitioners provide empirical evidence that their treatments work and are safe, those treatments cease being alternative and become evidence-based and orthodox.
>
> KlavotIt's not that simple or straight-forward, as I've tried to demonstrate. The graphical representation of the AROI curves was intended to demontrate that there are different rules being applied to nutrients than to other substances. Nutrient intake recommendations are based on symptoms of clinical deficiency, whereas pharmaceutical drugs are judged on symptoms of toxicity. The whole concept of orthomolecular medicine is based on getting into the AROI. Properly applied, toxicity is not relevant. That there are improper (i.e. toxic) applications does not invalidate the AROI concept.
Standard medical wisdom has it that a balanced diet will provide the RDA of all essential nutrients. As I expressed quite clearly, the RDA is itself based on clinical signs of deficiency syndromes, rather than optimal functioning. However, simply ignoring that issue, upon spending many years of effort, I have yet to find evidence that any diet (restricted to reasonable caloric intake) can even meet the nutrient RDAs. I have posted this as a challenge on newsgroups such as sci.med.nutrition, and no one has ever shown that I am wrong. There is no such thing as a balanced diet that meets all known RDAs. It cannot be done even for a single day, let alone providing for a diet with choices of menu items.
One poster developed a spreadsheet of the entire USDA nutrient database, and failed to find even one combination that met the 17 RDAs that were in the database. There are now over 30 nutrients with RDA values.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:744072
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070320/msgs/744354.html