|
|
|
|
|
|
by mamp
5126 days ago
|
|
|
This kind of thinking is simply not medically correct. The idea that eating a will lead to increase in b and then improve all these functions has no basis in evidence. The body is way more complex and the relationships between different proteins etc. is very complex and not well understood, yes, even despite all the work on micro-arrays and rapid DNA sequencing. High blood cholesterol for example, has a large endogenous component, which is why statins work. It would be nice if the body was simpler and obeyed simple rules of cause and effect. But it's very complex and simple thinking like this aren't based in fact. Trust me. I'm a doctor :-) |
|
|
Well, sometimes it does, and I don't think the parent post made any sort of general point asserting that this was a universal principle. So if A is a necessary precursor to B and cannot be manufactured from more base components, we have a situation where low levels of B can impair some performance metric, and up to a point an increase in A will increase that metric. The body will maintain endogenous control of the various systems so long as it has the base inputs it requires. As an aside, even if A can be manufactured by cells e.g. cholesterol, there is the whole issue of whether the cells have enough energy/capacity to produce this compound in sufficient quantities at a given time along with all the other demands of them.
>Trust me. I'm a doctor :-)
You basically oversimplified the parent's post and presented it as a straw man, noting generically that we have low understanding of many processes in the human body without refuting his specific argument. That is not a well structured enough of an argument for you to be asking anyone to trust you just based on some imagined superiority in rank. (Hint: being an MD, even a PHD is not a refutation of an argument)