Originally Posted by Corcioch
The meta analysis and subsequent 'peer reviewed' articles on it did not limit the list of possible benefactors of Vit C to those listed in the Cochrane Review. It referred to physical and environmental stress.
Which you tried to then whittle down to recreational weight trainers......,,where did I state recreational weight trainers?? stick to the facts.
Then you move onto an assumption about the manner in which people supplement with Vit C......and you make a statement, based utterly on assumption, that most people who take Vitamin C are doing so through multi vitamins. I think you'll find most don't...but that wouldn't be convenient to your 'argument'
Then we go back to your little study....like I said, it's not peer reviewed. And it's extremely poor. There are too many sweeping statments and too few facts.
How many IU of Vit C were administered to each person daily, what was the amount in excess of rda IU given and for how long?
As for the rest of the sweeping assumptions and generalisations in your reply about chewing on vitamins like smarties or whatever, knowing nothing about Nutrition etc.........thats where your argument went all 5year old and I'm not going to even bother.
Like I said, I wouldn't change a thing based on that article you referenced. It's poor to say the least as a piece of factual nutritional science
Is it just me or is your response, fairly rude?
Did you intend for the "tone" of your replies, to seem hostile?
Instead of just responding, only to what was posted, ( or rather, to what part, you disagreed with ) you chose to attack Tan with rude remarks, such as: " your little study" "thats where your argument went all 5year old".
You can form a valid argument ( if one is needed) based on facts and data- there is no need to be confrontational or combative. Just my two cents.