Proposing A Probability Chart Regarding Foods And Supplements

[David Sklansky]

I would love to see the people on this forum construct and debate a chart that I propose being made along these lines:

Column One would name a supplement or nutrient that supposedly has value. Blueberrys, Coq10, PectaSol, Salmon, etc.

Column Two would rate the importance, from one to 10 of the supposed benefits of that nutrient GIVEN it actually does what it is supposed to do.

Column Three would rate the probability (rounded to tenths, so it would range from zero to ten) that it works close to as well as its proponents claim.

Column Four would similary rate the probability that it has some value but not nearly what is claimed.

Column Five would multiply Column One by Column Four and add to that TWICE Column One times Column Three. (200 would thus be the top rating).

As an example, I would guess pomegranate juice at this moment might merit 6 2 7 66. Bee pollen might be 4 1 4 24. Omega 3 supplements might be 8 3 6 96. You get the idea.

I believe rating nutrients and foods this way (The Sklansky Nutrient Rating or SNR) could be very useful. There is just so much stuff out there with varying degrees of research and/or statistical signifigance behind it. In fact even reputable purveyors of these nutrients should not be averse to coming up with a SNR of most of them. Especially since even a low rating should probably not dissuade a buyer. Rather it would make the seller appear more forthright. Unbiased experts like the Harvard Health Letter would undoubtedly issue lower SNRs than Life Extension or Dr. Whitaker but I think they could all agree that this sort of rating system could be valuable.

Meanwhile before that happens, why don't the readers here try to hash out a chart on a few dozen of these things.

[Scary_Tiger]

Column 2 will vary, but column 3 is almost always 0 and column 4 is probably 8-9. Maybe I'm overestimating people though.

[edfurlong]

I honestly think this would be a better diablo forum thread, I don't really see it going very far in either forum though.

[dms]

This sounds like a good idea. Would a good starting point be to get suggestions on a few prominent supplements and maybe have the forum vote to narrow it down to 5 or 10? This can give focus to those and once there's some agreement we can discuss more?

A few to add to the list...

Glutamine
Creatine
Fish Oil
BCAA's

[Thremp]

Wow another stunningly horrid idea.

You do realize that certain elements in a diet have more or less value depending on the totality of the diet? Example you may or may not understand: If you eat lots of fish creatine supplementation provides much less value for you than it would for a vegan. A chart would be nonsensical and misapplied.

[dms]

While what you say is true, that doesn't mean that a chart couldn't be helpful. For creatine, you could simply put a not at the end of the row stating that big fish eaters may not see as great a change relative to the average person...etc.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow another stunningly horrid idea.

You do realize that certain elements in a diet have more or less value depending on the totality of the diet? Example you may or may not understand: If you eat lots of fish creatine supplementation provides much less value for you than it would for a vegan. A chart would be nonsensical and misapplied.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you use footnotes. In any case the chart would be most valuable in the case of supplements that there is still a lot of debate about.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow another stunningly horrid idea.

You do realize that certain elements in a diet have more or less value depending on the totality of the diet? Example you may or may not understand: If you eat lots of fish creatine supplementation provides much less value for you than it would for a vegan. A chart would be nonsensical and misapplied.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you use footnotes. In any case the chart would be most valuable in the case of supplements that there is still a lot of debate about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? How does someone know what CNS stim supplement they want to take by looking at a chart compiled by non-experts? Aside from the fact there is little data on the subject to create this chart with? Are you going to footnote all interactions and supplements you shouldn't take with one another?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
While what you say is true, that doesn't mean that a chart couldn't be helpful. For creatine, you could simply put a not at the end of the row stating that big fish eaters may not see as great a change relative to the average person...etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a simple example what about when trying to figure out if you wanna take a CNS/fat loss combo? What can you take together? What substances might you be more sensitive to? What can down regulate and what can't? Aside from the relative secrecy of the supplements themselves and lack of knowledge about them, this seems like an idea that would be just a chart based off vague general ideas of what supplements are perceived as.

[Colt McCoy]

We now understand the importance of the Sklansky Forum. It keeps David from clogging up the other forums with his bad ideas. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]