Why the study that showed taking vitamins don't work, is wrong.

13468911

Replies

  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    No matter how good your diet is, you can't get the full rdas of all the vitamins in a single day unless you go way over on calories on standard grocery store food.

    If that is true, then the RDAs are by definition too high.
    RDAs are how much they estimate you need of a vitamin not how much you can get from food. Most vitamin experts say they are actually too low.

    Any RDA that concludes we need more than can be obtained from a reasonable diet is by definition wrong.

    That would be a fair amount of them unless you are eating fortified foods which is like taking vitamins in the first place.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,533 Member
    edited August 2015
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    No matter how good your diet is, you can't get the full rdas of all the vitamins in a single day unless you go way over on calories on standard grocery store food.

    If that is true, then the RDAs are by definition too high.
    RDAs are how much they estimate you need of a vitamin not how much you can get from food. Most vitamin experts say they are actually too low.

    Any RDA that concludes we need more than can be obtained from a reasonable diet is by definition wrong.

    That would be a fair amount of them unless you are eating fortified foods which is like taking vitamins in the first place.

    Yes, I consider the RDAs for many vitamins to be at best psuedo-science for that very reason.

    If they were real, our species would have gone extinct a long time ago.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    No matter how good your diet is, you can't get the full rdas of all the vitamins in a single day unless you go way over on calories on standard grocery store food.

    If that is true, then the RDAs are by definition too high.
    RDAs are how much they estimate you need of a vitamin not how much you can get from food. Most vitamin experts say they are actually too low.

    Any RDA that concludes we need more than can be obtained from a reasonable diet is by definition wrong.

    That would be a fair amount of them unless you are eating fortified foods which is like taking vitamins in the first place.

    Yes, I consider the RDAs for many vitamins to be at best psuedo-science for that very reason.

    If they were real, our species would have gone extinct a long time ago.

    Not necessarily. There's a big difference between a slight deficiency and getting a disease from a deficiency. People can go decades (the lucky ones) lacking enough vitamins before disease starts. Most people procreate young and don't start getting health problems until they are middle age or older.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25272578
    Vitamin intake from food showed the deficiency of vitamins D, B1 and folates and adequate intake of vitamins A, C, E, B2, B6, B12.

    Most vitamins are easily eaten to good amounts in your normal food intake.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    There's no way the body can absorb 20g of vitamin c a day. Nevermind that everyone raves because it's an antixodant, but in high doses it becomes an oxidant and can cause DNA damage. Of course, in biochemical they said we'd never have to worry about that because your body can't absorb that much unless it starts malfunctioning. At this point, you just have very expensive pee.
  • andrikosDE
    andrikosDE Posts: 383 Member
    Vitamin supplements make for excellent municipal water supply enhancers.
    At least the water soluble ones.
  • Horrorfox
    Horrorfox Posts: 204 Member
    nIl1NTx.jpg
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,499 Member
    Horrorfox wrote: »
    nIl1NTx.jpg

    For the sake of full disclosure, as you seem to be highly interested in this topic and her work. Do you by chance have a personal connection to this Dr. Patrick?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,533 Member
    edited August 2015
    And yet, we keep living longer, and usefully-longer, lives.

    There's a huge disconnect between theory and evidence here...
  • laconrad2013
    laconrad2013 Posts: 41 Member
    The FDA does not regulate supplements, test for safety or otherwise, unless they are already on the market and consumers have reported adverse health effects. One of the many reasons I do not take any supplements.
  • Horrorfox
    Horrorfox Posts: 204 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    And yet, we keep living longer, and usefully-longer, lives.

    There's a huge disconnect between theory and evidence here...

    And yet there are over 14 million people that have cancer in the U.S.
  • Horrorfox
    Horrorfox Posts: 204 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »
    Horrorfox wrote: »
    nIl1NTx.jpg

    For the sake of full disclosure, as you seem to be highly interested in this topic and her work. Do you by chance have a personal connection to this Dr. Patrick?

    No, I don't. And I posted publications from other sources, and they went ignored. I put up a pretty picture and it's back to discrediting it because you don't like the author.

    No worries though, I'm done with the conversation. I for one am not qualified to talk, as I have no background in cell biology, or nutrition, and all I'm doing is parroting points from other sources. I'm not trying to convert people into taking vitamin pills. Everyone should try to get what they can from food, but when you don't, or can't, you should supplement. To say vitamins don't work is pretty ignorant. If you question the validity of the supplement you're taking, get blood work done before and after taking it.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    Horrorfox wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    And yet, we keep living longer, and usefully-longer, lives.

    There's a huge disconnect between theory and evidence here...

    And yet there are over 14 million people that have cancer in the U.S.

    There are two primary factors driving cancer incident rates - increased life span and increased detection.
  • rrrca
    rrrca Posts: 8 Member
    mantium999 wrote: »

    For the sake of full disclosure, as you seem to be highly interested in this topic and her work. Do you by chance have a personal connection to this Dr. Patrick?

    Clever method of attacking the OP.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,182 MFP Moderator
    Horrorfox wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    And yet, we keep living longer, and usefully-longer, lives.

    There's a huge disconnect between theory and evidence here...

    And yet there are over 14 million people that have cancer in the U.S.

    And you can thank genetics for a large part of that.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,182 MFP Moderator
    edited August 2015
    rrrca wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »

    For the sake of full disclosure, as you seem to be highly interested in this topic and her work. Do you by chance have a personal connection to this Dr. Patrick?

    Clever method of attacking the OP.
    Actually, its a valid question. I couldnt tell you how often people come on to this forum to help promote youtube views or help sell ones services.

    Quite frankly, i regularly ban and/or hand out strikes on a daily basis for self promotion or advertising.
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,499 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    rrrca wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »

    For the sake of full disclosure, as you seem to be highly interested in this topic and her work. Do you by chance have a personal connection to this Dr. Patrick?

    Clever method of attacking the OP.
    Actually, its a valid question. I couldnt tell you how often people come on to this forum to help promote youtube views or help sell ones services.

    Quite frankly, i regularly ban and/or hand out strikes on a daily basis for self promotion or advertising.

    This. The OP has made multiple references to the work of a particular doc. I myself have little knowledge in the topic at hand, and enjoy learning. Seems reasonable, when a person seems passionate about a particular source of information to try qualifying the reason for that passion, so that others can assess the validity of the information being provided. And while he did link a couple of other sources of information, those posts didn't include the same level of defense/passion as the posts that include discussion of Dr. Patrick. Wasn't in any way intended to attack anyone, simply curious why one particular doc is held in such high regard. Simple curiosity.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Horrorfox wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    And yet, we keep living longer, and usefully-longer, lives.

    There's a huge disconnect between theory and evidence here...

    And yet there are over 14 million people that have cancer in the U.S.

    There are two primary factors driving cancer incident rates - increased life span and increased detection.

    Third one: bigger population.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 46,982 Member
    I don't think there's any harm in taking a mulit-vitamin along with eating well. I take one. I believe the problem is that people that don't eat well take vitamins believing they reach correct RDA with them when that may not be the entire truth.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png