23 replies to this topic

[Yann]

I read that taking sups for a long period of time will make your body dependent and unable to get the nutrients from food anymore. Some pharmacists I talked to said I should regularly stop taking sups for a few weeks to keep my body from developing a dependency. Do you guys agree with this and do you do this?

Thanks.

[Advanc3d]

I read that taking sups for a long period of time will make your body dependent and unable to get the nutrients from food anymore. Some pharmacists I talked to said I should regularly stop taking sups for a few weeks to keep my body from developing a dependency. Do you guys agree with this and do you do this?

Thanks.

depends on what supplements
as long as u dont use the supplements as a type of meal replacement then you shouldnt have a problem

[Yann]

I'm talking about the essential vitamins and minerals found in most multi vitamins, but also other anti-oxidants. Are you sure it's safe to take those sups for a long time and then suddenly stop for a period of time?
I read a post by TheFirstImmortal where he says that he was taking about 150 pills a day and then suddenly stopped for a few months and that in those few months he got cancer. Reading something like that combined with several pharmacists warning me about this got me quite worried... Has anyone done any serious reseearch on this?

[LIB]

I'm talking about the essential vitamins and minerals found in most multi vitamins, but also other anti-oxidants. Are you sure it's safe to take those sups for a long time and then suddenly stop for a period of time?
I read a post by TheFirstImmortal where he says that he was taking about 150 pills a day and then suddenly stopped for a few months and that in those few months he got cancer. Reading something like that combined with several pharmacists warning me about this got me quite worried... Has anyone done any serious reseearch on this?

interesting subject. I wonder if that cancer would of came sooner if he wasn't taking the supps?

[4eva]

Do you think it would be good to stop eating so we don't get dependent on food?

It seems to me we are dependent on food and water to stay alive. Doesn't that mean we are dependent on nutrition?

Did any of these pharmasists explain the consequences of being dependent on nutrients?

I don't know why being dependent on supplemental nutrition is question if dependence on food and water is accepted.

Maybe the concept of dependency is the problem, and it implying something bad.

Do they do that to hospitals patients, removing parental nutrition? Would that seem reasonable?

[Yann]

Do you think it would be good to stop eating so we don't get dependent on food?

That is an absurd comparison. You can't become independent from food. You eat it or you die. Yet you may be able to get the anti aging benefits of supplementation while halting sup intake periodically to prevent dependency.
Furthermore, not being able to get supplements anymore at some point in your life is a lot more likely than getting in a situation where you can't get food and water anymore. If your chances of getting cancer skyrocket in such a situation, it might be wise to prevent total dependency now.

Edited by Yann, 19 August 2008 - 06:27 PM.

[4eva]

If you couldn't get your supplements and had to stop all supplements and then got sick that might be considered a dependency.

Or, if you were to stop taking all your supplements voluntarily and started to feel ill in other ways isn't that an indication of how important those supplements are.

You view dependency on supplements as a bad thing, I think. Should a diabetic not start insulin treatment because they don't want a dependency on insulin?

Not supplementing doesn't mean you don't have a dependency; it just means you are denying it.

We're dependent on food, water, clean air, and maybe some other things but that dependency is not something you see as bad.

Not all dependencies are bad like drug dependencies (addictions).

The idea that not taking supplements in the first place to prevent cancer after some period of use or dependency is not logical to me. I think you might get cancer sooner if you weren't getting the nutritional support that supplements provide.

If in the future you couldn't eat organic, whole foods, healthy food choices for whatever reason should you not eat those foods when you can? Why not eat junk food exclusively now and not worry about the need or dependency on a healthy food choices in the future.

if you have control over something then why not make the right decision instead of speculating on some future event OUT OF YOUR CONTROL causing you to make a decision not in your best interest.

its like people who say we are all going to die so why not smoke. I could be killed by a bus at anytime so why practice healthy habits.

Those are two different things, stuff you can control and stuff you can't control. Because you can't control everything in life doesn't mean you shouldn't control the things you can.

Unless you have a death wish I don't know why you want to factor in the worst case sxenario as a real possibility and take steps to offset that somehow by making bad decisions now.

[luv2increase]

The only feasible reason to stop taking supps for a period of time would be to give the liver and kidneys a break.


For this very reason, every Sunday I take no supplements and keep my food intake very low and sometimes non-existent (fast).



You should drinks lots of water daily if you are on an aggressive supplement regimen. Liver support is a must as well (milk thistle, omega 3).

[Dmitri]

I read that taking sups for a long period of time will make your body dependent and unable to get the nutrients from food anymore. Some pharmacists I talked to said I should regularly stop taking sups for a few weeks to keep my body from developing a dependency. Do you guys agree with this and do you do this?

Thanks.

How reliable can a pharmacist be, wouldn’t they be more concerned about selling pharmaceuticals than supplements? Also, doctors recommend taking multi-vitamins/minerals, so I’m sure it’s safe.

[Yann]

4eva, I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a good idea to not take supplements at all to avoid dependency. And I also agree with you that you could say that our bodies are dependent on supplements anyway in order to reach an old age in great health.

But for a moment, look at it like this:
Let's suppose you still get most benefits from supplementation, even while halting supplementation intake for 2 weeks every 3 months.
Also suppose that if you take supplements for many years without a break, and then suddenly have to stop for one year for whatever reason, your chances of developing cancer in that year are ten times higher than if you never had taken any supplements.

In that scenario, wouldn't it be preferable to choose for the three monthly break from supplements (and in doing so maybe sacrificing a small percentage of it's benefits) to avoid disaster scenario's in the event that you might have to stop supplementation for an extended period of time somewhere in the future?
Of course I'm not sure taking regular breaks will still give you most of the health benefits, or that regular breaks will actually make the health benefits plummet.
I'm also not sure that your chances of developing cancer would suddenly skyrocket in the other scenario. But nevertheless I think we have good reason to be cautious.

Look for instance at what happened to thefirstimmortal. He'd been taking 150 pills a day for the majority of his life and was, as far as I gather from his posts, in excellent health. When he was unable to continue his supplementation because of circumstances, he developed the most agressive type of lung cancer within two years of quiting supplementation. Now, I'm not saying it's certain that he got the cancer only because he didn't take regular breaks from his regime and then suddenly quit his supplementation altogether. But I'm saying that it's possible, and maybe even likely. If that is the case, then suddenly stopping his intense supplementation was the one and only cause of the development of his cancer, and regular interruptions in his regime could have prevented it.

Don't you think this is a concern to be taken seriously?

[Wulf]

Previous discussions:

1. Effectiveness of exogenous supplements over time, Do you cycle your supplements?
2. Cycling Your Supplements

Worth mentioning:

1. See a doctor!, word of warning!!!

But for a moment, look at it like this:
Let's suppose you still get most benefits from supplementation, even while halting supplementation intake for 2 weeks every 3 months.
Also suppose that if you take supplements for many years without a break, and then suddenly have to stop for one year for whatever reason, your chances of developing cancer in that year are ten times higher than if you never had taken any supplements.

In that scenario, wouldn't it be preferable to choose for the three monthly break from supplements (and in doing so maybe sacrificing a small percentage of it's benefits) to avoid disaster scenario's in the event that you might have to stop supplementation for an extended period of time somewhere in the future?
Of course I'm not sure taking regular breaks will still give you most of the health benefits, or that regular breaks will actually make the health benefits plummet.
I'm also not sure that your chances of developing cancer would suddenly skyrocket in the other scenario. But nevertheless I think we have good reason to be cautious.

This scenario is based on the idea that stopping supplementation would somehow increase a persons risk of cancer. Help me understand why you think this scenario is possible. Downregulation? Upregulation? Enzyme induction? The causes of cancer are extremely complex and extremely varied.

Look for instance at what happened to thefirstimmortal. He'd been taking 150 pills a day for the majority of his life and was, as far as I gather from his posts, in excellent health. When he was unable to continue his supplementation because of circumstances, he developed the most agressive type of lung cancer within two years of quiting supplementation. Now, I'm not saying it's certain that he got the cancer only because he didn't take regular breaks from his regime and then suddenly quit his supplementation altogether. But I'm saying that it's possible, and maybe even likely. If that is the case, then suddenly stopping his intense supplementation was the one and only cause of the development of his cancer, and regular interruptions in his regime could have prevented it.

You really should stop using this to support the possibility of your scenario. thefirstimmortal has Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. SCLC risk factors are smoking, second hand smoke, exposure to asbestos and radon as well as nickel, chromium, cadmium, uranium, chloromethyl ether, and/or air pollutants.

Don't you think this is a concern to be taken seriously?

Of course this needs to be taken seriously. Ultimately though, it depends entirely on you. If you are taking something based solely on someones recommendation, without having done research and examined the substance's safety profile, then the risk lies with you.

A large number of dietary supplements are just that: increasing the substances that we already consume through diet to optimum levels.

The benefit in cycling a supplement depends heavily on the action that supplement has on the body and the safety profile. Vitamin C, a water soluble antioxidant probably won't hurt me if I somehow forget to cycle it. This changes when you consider something like melatonin, which has no long-term use studies as of yet (long term: 5+ years) and the theory (unproven and unobservered in academia) that pineal gland atrophy is possible with long term exogenous melatonin supplementation. So I feel strongly about cycling it. Again, I observe the risk/benefit ratio and decide for myself.

Personally, I would advocate cycling all supplements, regardless of risk profile. As zoolander has mentioned time and time again, regular blood work is important too.

Edited by Wulf, 20 August 2008 - 12:53 PM.

[Yann]

Thanks for the links Wulf.

But for a moment, look at it like this:
Let's suppose you still get most benefits from supplementation, even while halting supplementation intake for 2 weeks every 3 months.
Also suppose that if you take supplements for many years without a break, and then suddenly have to stop for one year for whatever reason, your chances of developing cancer in that year are ten times higher than if you never had taken any supplements.

In that scenario, wouldn't it be preferable to choose for the three monthly break from supplements (and in doing so maybe sacrificing a small percentage of it's benefits) to avoid disaster scenario's in the event that you might have to stop supplementation for an extended period of time somewhere in the future?
Of course I'm not sure taking regular breaks will still give you most of the health benefits, or that regular breaks will actually make the health benefits plummet.
I'm also not sure that your chances of developing cancer would suddenly skyrocket in the other scenario. But nevertheless I think we have good reason to be cautious.

This scenario is based on the idea that stopping supplementation would somehow increase a persons risk of cancer. Help me understand why you think this scenario is possible. Downregulation? Upregulation? Enzyme induction? The causes of cancer are extremely complex and extremely varied.

Anti-oxidants reduce the risk of cancer. If prolonged anti-oxidant supplementation results in your body being unable to absorb natural anti-oxidants from food anymore, suddenly quiting supplementation would result is a sudden and drastic lack of anti-oxidants, reducing your body's potential to neutralize free radicals to an all-time low. Wouldn't that seriously increase the chance of developing cancers?

You really should stop using this to support the possibility of your scenario. thefirstimmortal has Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. SCLC risk factors are smoking, second hand smoke, exposure to asbestos and radon as well as nickel, chromium, cadmium, uranium, chloromethyl ether, and/or air pollutants.

The damaging effect of things like cigarette smoke and air pollution is significantly lowered by the presence of anti-oxidants. A sudden lack of them caused by halting supplementation would magnify the harm they cause. Is my logic flawed? The fact that he developed lung cancer 2 years after quitting supplementation honestly is quite unsettling to me. Certainly if he was in great health before. It would be irresponsible to not speculate and be concerned about this, and to just label it as a coincidence.

Personally, I would advocate cycling all supplements, regardless of risk profile.

How do you cycle yours? Do you cycle all your supplements the same way?

Edited by Yann, 20 August 2008 - 03:50 PM.

[luv2increase]

Thanks for the links Wulf.

But for a moment, look at it like this:
Let's suppose you still get most benefits from supplementation, even while halting supplementation intake for 2 weeks every 3 months.
Also suppose that if you take supplements for many years without a break, and then suddenly have to stop for one year for whatever reason, your chances of developing cancer in that year are ten times higher than if you never had taken any supplements.

In that scenario, wouldn't it be preferable to choose for the three monthly break from supplements (and in doing so maybe sacrificing a small percentage of it's benefits) to avoid disaster scenario's in the event that you might have to stop supplementation for an extended period of time somewhere in the future?
Of course I'm not sure taking regular breaks will still give you most of the health benefits, or that regular breaks will actually make the health benefits plummet.
I'm also not sure that your chances of developing cancer would suddenly skyrocket in the other scenario. But nevertheless I think we have good reason to be cautious.

This scenario is based on the idea that stopping supplementation would somehow increase a persons risk of cancer. Help me understand why you think this scenario is possible. Downregulation? Upregulation? Enzyme induction? The causes of cancer are extremely complex and extremely varied.

Anti-oxidants reduce the risk of cancer. If prolonged anti-oxidant supplementation results in your body being unable to absorb natural anti-oxidants from food anymore, suddenly quiting supplementation would result is a sudden and drastic lack of anti-oxidants, reducing your body's potential to neutralize free radicals to an all-time low. Wouldn't that seriously increase the chance of developing cancers?

You really should stop using this to support the possibility of your scenario. thefirstimmortal has Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. SCLC risk factors are smoking, second hand smoke, exposure to asbestos and radon as well as nickel, chromium, cadmium, uranium, chloromethyl ether, and/or air pollutants.

The damaging effect of things like cigarette smoke and air pollution is significantly lowered by the presence of anti-oxidants. A sudden lack of them caused by halting supplementation would magnify the harm they cause. Is my logic flawed? The fact that he developed lung cancer 2 years after quitting supplementation honestly is quite unsettling to me. Certainly if he was in great health before. It would be irresponsible to not speculate and be concerned about this, and to just label it as a coincidence.

Personally, I would advocate cycling all supplements, regardless of risk profile.

How do you cycle yours? Do you cycle all your supplements the same way?

Do let it me know: I have been on super aggressive supplement regimens throughout my life for extending periods of time and then ceased to use excessive amounts of drugs and alcohol in their place. In other words, I have been on a so-called roller coaster ride when it comes to supplements. At one point, I will be doing everything right (almost too right) then all of a sudden to be drinking almost daily and doing everything else wrong (diet, sleep, etc...). When I look at the regimens here, I can guarantee that I have been on some that are 10X bigger filled with countless supplements which of course contain a gran multitude of anti-oxidants.

I don't have cancer.

One thing you will learn in science 101 is that correlation is not causation ; therefore, your logic is flawed because no scientific studies have been done on what you are suggesting.

Edited by luv2increase, 20 August 2008 - 05:24 PM.

[JLL]

Correlation also does not exclude causation, and just because there are no studies on something does not mean it's not possible.

I'm not saying he's right, but I think your logic is flawed.

[Wulf]

Anti-oxidants reduce the risk of cancer. If prolonged anti-oxidant supplementation results in your body being unable to absorb natural anti-oxidants from food anymore, suddenly quiting supplementation would result is a sudden and drastic lack of anti-oxidants, reducing your body's potential to neutralize free radicals to an all-time low. Wouldn't that seriously increase the chance of developing cancers?

Is my logic flawed?

I think your reducing things to the extreme (reductio ad absurdum). Your assumption is: lack of antioxidants = severe increase in developing cancer. You've reduced carcinogensis to a single variable, when the real amount of variables are staggering, e.g. chemical carcinogens, radiation, genetics, immune system dysfunction, viruses and on and on.

You are also lumping antioxidants together. Water-soluble antioxidants are different than lipid soluble antioxidants. Every single supplement you take, regardless of category, will act in its own individual way. This means each individual supplement is its own variable in your own personal risk/benefit equation.

You really need to start thinking about the mechanisms behind your concerns, rather than depending on conjecture. Help me understand through what mechanism you think the body will stop absorbing anti-oxidants from food in the presence of supplemental antioxidants. Then maybe I can give you my opinion if this is a valid concern or not. Otherwise, you're just advancing an argument based on conjecture.

How do you cycle yours? Do you cycle all your supplements the same way?

I take two days off a week, every week and then two weeks off every three months. I'm also planning on blood work that includes a CBC, liver panel, thyroid panel, lipid profile, etc. I admittedly copied zoolander's cycling. However, I did this after I read and accumulated papers on toxicity studies of everything I take. I felt the cycling schedule fit my supplementation appropriately. Again, it was a personal decision, based on my assessment of my personal risk. It is firmly your responsibility to determine the risks of your supplementation and to determine how to appropriately mediate this risk. Having a very firm understanding of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokenitics of the substances you're taking helps this process. Paying attention to all of the studies done about a particular substance and not just the studies that serve to reinforce your belief in taking something will also help greatly.


As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

[luv2increase]

Anti-oxidants reduce the risk of cancer. If prolonged anti-oxidant supplementation results in your body being unable to absorb natural anti-oxidants from food anymore, suddenly quiting supplementation would result is a sudden and drastic lack of anti-oxidants, reducing your body's potential to neutralize free radicals to an all-time low. Wouldn't that seriously increase the chance of developing cancers?

Is my logic flawed?

I think your reducing things to the extreme (reductio ad absurdum). Your assumption is: lack of antioxidants = severe increase in developing cancer. You've reduced carcinogensis to a single variable, when the real amount of variables are staggering, e.g. chemical carcinogens, radiation, genetics, immune system dysfunction, viruses and on and on.

You are also lumping antioxidants together. Water-soluble antioxidants are different than lipid soluble antioxidants. Every single supplement you take, regardless of category, will act in its own individual way. This means each individual supplement is its own variable in your own personal risk/benefit equation.

You really need to start thinking about the mechanisms behind your concerns, rather than depending on conjecture. Help me understand through what mechanism you think the body will stop absorbing anti-oxidants from food in the presence of supplemental antioxidants. Then maybe I can give you my opinion if this is a valid concern or not. Otherwise, you're just advancing an argument based on conjecture.

How do you cycle yours? Do you cycle all your supplements the same way?

I take two days off a week, every week and then two weeks off every three months. I'm also planning on blood work that includes a CBC, liver panel, thyroid panel, lipid profile, etc. I admittedly copied zoolander's cycling. However, I did this after I read and accumulated papers on toxicity studies of everything I take. I felt the cycling schedule fit my supplementation appropriately. Again, it was a personal decision, based on my assessment of my personal risk. It is firmly your responsibility to determine the risks of your supplementation and to determine how to appropriately mediate this risk. Having a very firm understanding of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokenitics of the substances you're taking helps this process. Paying attention to all of the studies done about a particular substance and not just the studies that serve to reinforce your belief in taking something will also help greatly.


As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

Well said!

Wulf, you seem like a very knowledgeable and smart person. I am glad you are here on these forums. Please do continue to give your insight!

[Yann]

As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

It was not my intention to disrespectfully reference his situations as a device to further my argument. I must admit the main reason why I'm so concerned about this topic is because I read about his particular situation. I only referenced it to justify my concern to anyone reading my post. I'm sorry if I have offended you or anyone else in doing so.

[luv2increase]

As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

It was not my intention to disrespectfully reference his situations as a device to further my argument. I must admit the main reason why I'm so concerned about this topic is because I read about his particular situation. I only referenced it to justify my concern to anyone reading my post. I'm sorry if I have offended you or anyone else in doing so.

You are fine Yann. It is better being a little paranoid and questioning than to be one whom goes blindly gung-ho into an extensive supplement regimen without knowing what the heck is going on.


Congrats.

Edited by luv2increase, 21 August 2008 - 09:40 PM.

[4eva]

QUOTE
As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

You say you don't speak for him but you are in fact speaking for him.

How can you know his reaction and if he feels it is disrespectful? Even if you knew how he felt why would it be your place to disclose that info for him (since you said you don't speak for him).

Why is it not proper? If this is not just your opinion then you explain why it isn't proper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all Yann did was state what is known about Bill O'Rights. Is this not correct? I see nothing wrong with repeating info already posted on this forum. If its posted here then it is a topic for discussion. What comments did Yann make that were inappropriate? I don't see any inappropriate comments in this thread. Referencing it because Yann sees it is a factor in his decision is not appropriate to me.

[luv2increase]

QUOTE
As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

You say you don't speak for him but you are in fact speaking for him.

How can you know his reaction and if he feels it is disrespectful? Even if you knew how he felt why would it be your place to disclose that info for him (since you said you don't speak for him).

Why is it not proper? If this is not just your opinion then you explain why it isn't proper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all Yann did was state what is known about Bill O'Rights. Is this not correct? I see nothing wrong with repeating info already posted on this forum. If its posted here then it is a topic for discussion. What comments did Yann make that were inappropriate? I don't see any inappropriate comments in this thread. Referencing it because Yann sees it is a factor in his decision is not appropriate to me.

It's over so let's cool it shall we...

[Wulf]

It was not my intention to disrespectfully reference his situations as a device to further my argument. I must admit the main reason why I'm so concerned about this topic is because I read about his particular situation. I only referenced it to justify my concern to anyone reading my post. I'm sorry if I have offended you or anyone else in doing so.

Yann, I don't think your intent was wrong, and you did not offend me. I realize your intent by referencing it, it just I personally, meaning me and only me, didn't feel comfortable speculating how a fellow members illness came to be or using it to justify the possibility that not cycling supplements can lead to cancer.

You say you don't speak for him but you are in fact speaking for him.

How can you know his reaction and if he feels it is disrespectful? Even if you knew how he felt why would it be your place to disclose that info for him (since you said you don't speak for him).

Why is it not proper? If this is not just your opinion then you explain why it isn't proper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all Yann did was state what is known about Bill O'Rights. Is this not correct? I see nothing wrong with repeating info already posted on this forum. If its posted here then it is a topic for discussion. What comments did Yann make that were inappropriate? I don't see any inappropriate comments in this thread. Referencing it because Yann sees it is a factor in his decision is not appropriate to me.

Please don't twist what amounts to my feelings on a subject. I said:

As an added note: I'm not going to address your concerns with thefirstimmortal's cancer. I think using a fellow member's illness as an argument device is not proper or respectful to that person. I don't speak for him, but I would personally appreciate if you frame your questions and argument in general terms, without referring to his very real and ongoing battle with cancer.

It is solely my opinion and my feelings. Period. My discomfort was using his situation to justify the argument that not cycling supplements will somehow result in cancer. You are more than welcome to discuss whatever you want about William or anyone else for that matter. I was explaining to Yann why I wasn't going to continue to do so.

[4eva]

QUOTE
Please don't twist what amounts to my feelings on a subject.

I didn't twist anything.

I thought this was a forum that discussed medical and other scientific topics - not feelings.

[Wulf]

I thought this was a forum that discussed medical and other scientific topics - not feelings.

My apologies. I will refrain from expressing my opinion (i.e. my feelings on a subject) in the forums and stick to medical and scientific topics.

Edited by Wulf, 22 August 2008 - 09:02 AM.

[Yann]

My apologies. I will refrain from expressing my opinion (i.e. my feelings on a subject) in the forums and stick to medical and scientific topics.

I have no problem with you expressing your feelings on any subject. If you feel uncomfortable discussing this particular topic I respect that and I won't make any attempts to discuss this with you any further.

What I would like to add to this as a final note is that it's easy to get excited about something and get so caught up in it that we tend to start looking at it from one angle. If anti-aging is a hobby and we enjoy researching and trying to figure out what the ideal supplementation regimen would be for us, and especially if we put in a lot of time and effort to eventually come up with a regimen that we're pretty confident about, it's very unpleasant to be confronted with a situation like thefirstimmortal's and having to speculate about what it could mean for how we go about our own supplementation habits. A situation like that forces our attention to the possible risks that could be involved in heavy supplementation that we maybe since long have stopped considering. Personally, if I had been on heavy supplementation for many years, hearing his story would have scared the hell out of me. I would be terrified to go off the sups, for whatever reason. I don't want to paint any doom scenarios or try to get people to worry needlessly. I just think it's very important we always keep an open mind and look at all the facts we have as objectively as possible without letting what we want to believe and what we want to be the truth influence our rational and objective assesment of the facts.

I'm also not saying that people on this forum let their objectivity be influenced like that. I'm new here and it's not my place to make any assumptions yet. But what I do know is that I recognise this tendency in myself, to cling to ideas that took a lot of time and effort to solidify. I recognise this tendency in myself because it's simply very annoying and frustating having to rethink things that I've been taking for granted for a long time. I find myself having to fight that tendency from time to time, because I'm scared of falling into that trap. I'd much rather just assume that there can't possibly be anything dangerous about the supplement regime I'm currently on, so it takes real effort to keep questioning that with a sceptic mind. But not maintaining that scepticism feels wrong and irresponsible to me.

Anyway I'm going to stop ranting about this, I just wanted to get this off my chest. Thanks for reading, for those who did.