What I think is easily overlooked is the term "routine" in the following sentence: "Nutrition experts contend that all we need is what's typically found in a routine diet." Because routine is often defined as: "A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure."
I suppose if we are all trained dietitians/nutritionists that should be easy-peasy, but for the vast majority of us?
Let us not forget simple facts like salt is iodized because most people would be deficient otherwise. Foods are often fortified and enriched because we would become nutrient deficient otherwise.
It also ignores niches within groups, such as this tidbit from WebMD: "... researchers found the most effect on people who were in extreme conditions, such as marathon runners. In this group, taking vitamin C cut their risk of catching a cold in half." Perhaps stressing the importance of exercise to achieve more optimal well-being. The NLM suggests people living in very cold temperatures also stand to benefit from vitamin C supplements, and I imagine that marathon running in a cold environment... better take some C!
Unfortunately, the studies, in general, are far from conclusive and in many cases present conflicting conclusions. Many studies also appear to ignore synergies between vitamins/minerals -- that groups often aid proper absorption and misgroupings can cause malabsorption or even leeching. For instance, I'd be interested in a study that compares EmergenC to 1 gram 'plain' vitamin C, because I'd imagine EmergenC is going to be more effective. Or maybe eating an orange or some fruit/veg with a certain amount of C VS just that amount of C by itself.
Like my momma always said, "where you going to find [insert practically any single vitamin/mineral] all by itself in nature that we actually eat?!" Even sea salt has lots of trace minerals! She was all about eating right FIRST and using supplements sparingly as backup (like Vit D in the winter months, to compensate for less sun on the skin). That's a great plan, IMO, but I doubt most people routinely do that.
We've seen processor performance double every three to four years. And yet, some of the most demanding game engines we've tested are as old as the Core 2 Duo that still resides in my office PC. Surely, CPU bottlenecks would be a thing of the past, right? Well, as it turns out, GPU performance speeds ahead at an even faster rate than that of host processors. And so, the debate over whether to buy a faster CPU or even more graphics muscle rages on.
There comes a point where it's pointless to continue the battle, though. For us, that happened when our games ran smoothly at our largest monitor's 2560x1600 native resolution. It simply didn't matter if a faster component took us from an average of 120 to 200 frames per second.
In response to the stagnation caused by increasingly faster components, but limited resolutions, AMD introduced its Eyefinity technology as Nvidia responded with Surround. Both expand beyond a single display, making 5760x1080 a very playable resolution on high-end GPUs. In fact, a trio of 1920x1080 displays is both less expensive and more engrossing than a single 2560x1600 screen, giving us the perfect excuse to splurge on some extra pixel-pushing power.
But does a display surface stretching 5760x1080 require any additional processing muscle in order to prevent bottlenecks? Ah, suddenly that becomes an interesting question again.
Up until now, when we've used AMD's GPUs, we've typically paired them with its competition's processors. Is such a move backed by hard data? Previously, based on plenty of benchmark results, we would have said so. However, the company has a new architecture available, so we bought a boxed FX-8350 to challenge prior convention. After all, there was a lot to like in AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?
Entering this contest at a heavy economical disadvantage, Intel’s Core i7-3770K needs to prove that it's not only faster than the AMD chip in games, but fast enough to overcome its price premium in our value analysis.
Although both of the motherboards we're using come from Asus' Sabertooth family, the company charges more for its LGA 1155-equipped model, further complicating the value story for Intel. We picked these platforms specifically to achieve the ultimate fairness from a performance standpoint, without pricing getting in the way.
Results of tests and summary at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html"
Link to Original Source