Vitamins
Options
Replies
-
.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »From the article
Which is an odd statement to make, as I don’t see the Annals or any “scientist” suggesting we should substitute vitamins with drugs for any of the conditions studied. The science is in fact very clear on this point: The healthiest approach, and the science-based approach, is to obtain your vitamins from your food – not from supplements.
If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that several of the studies that failed to show any benefit were funded by the makers of the supplements themselves
You're right, I didn't bother to read it since I'm tired of propaganda from both sides of the spectrum. I had hope when it said that those suffering from deficiencies may find use in specific supplementations, but then it went on to state that the vast majority of people within the US wouldn't need such supplementation. This just isn't true. Looking at Vit D alone and RDI levels, up to 40% of the population may be deficient 1 2 3, and if you read into these you'll see mentions of lack of multivitamin use as being correlated to this Vit D deficiency. That's just one vitamin I picked out, we could do it for many others.
Hardly the case that the majority of people don't need a multivitamin.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »From the article
Which is an odd statement to make, as I don’t see the Annals or any “scientist” suggesting we should substitute vitamins with drugs for any of the conditions studied. The science is in fact very clear on this point: The healthiest approach, and the science-based approach, is to obtain your vitamins from your food – not from supplements.
If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that several of the studies that failed to show any benefit were funded by the makers of the supplements themselves
You're right, I didn't bother to read it since I'm tired of propaganda from both sides of the spectrum. I had hope when it said that those suffering from deficiencies may find use in specific supplementations, but then it went on to state that the vast majority of people within the US wouldn't need such supplementation. This just isn't true. Looking at Vit D alone and RDI levels, up to 40% of the population may be deficient 1 2 3, and if you read into these you'll see mentions of lack of multivitamin use as being correlated to this Vit D deficiency. That's just one vitamin I picked out, we could do it for many others.
Hardly the case that the majority of people don't need a multivitamin.
Targeted supplementation is not the same as indiscriminate multivitamin use.
From the same site
But there are also many situations in which targeted supplementation is evidence-based and appropriate. There is increasing evidence to support the use of vitamin D supplementation for many populations. Many elderly have borderline or low B12 levels, which correlates with dementia. Pregnant women should take prenanatal vitamins. (To give just a few examples.)
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-mortality/
ETA You might want to look up the definition of majority. (Hint: it's not 40%)1 -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-evidence-that-routine-multivitamin-use-should-be-avoided/
Conclusion
Three new papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine add to an accumulated body of research that has studied the health effects of routine vitamin and mineral supplements in healthy populations. The best available evidence gives us good, reliable information to conclude that multivitamins offer no meaningful health benefits to the generally healthy consumer. It’s time to bring an end to the era of indiscriminate multivitamin use.
https://examine.com/faq/do-i-need-a-multivitamin/
Healthy or dangerous?
Neither, really.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest a multivitamin is associated with less risk of cancer and disease,[6] and this holds true when investigating the most popular compounds in multivitamins, the anti-oxidants.[7][8][9]
Some studies note higher mortality associated with multivitamin use, but the relative risk ratios tend to not surpass 2.00 (in which a number greater than 1, or no difference, suggests a stronger possible relation). This is not strong evidence for causation.[10] This weak association is also found when cherry-picking some other studies,[11] but strong relationships between multivitamins and harm have not been found.
Some studies that investigated both benefit and harm, report neither.[12][13]
Although nutrients in multivitamins may confer benefits when used for a specific purpose, (as some studies note high variability, suggesting some people benefit and others do not)[14][15][16] the idea of taking a pill that contains all of the vitamins and minerals to better one's health does not appear to be supported by the literature. However, it does not appear to be significantly harmful either.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-vitamins-should-i-take-2015-10
Multivitamins: Skip them — you get everything you need with a balanced diet.
For decades, it was assumed that multivitamins were critical to overall health. Vitamin C to "boost your immune system," Vitamin A to protect your vision, Vitamin B to keep you energized.
Not only do you already get these ingredients from the food you eat, but studies suggest that consuming them in excess can actually cause harm. A large 2011 study of close to 39,000 older women over 25 years found that women who took them in the long term actually had a higher overall risk of death than those who did not.4 -
I will state that I take a number of vitamina and minerals based on blood testing and I take a multi for the hell of it. Bias aside I am not sure the text above is meaningful to the discussion.
I agree that a balanced diet will give most people what they need. No argument there. The problem is that people don't always have a balanced diet. If a balanced diet was commonplace then we wouldn't have quite the obesity problem we do. A better study would be to look at a "typical" diet and determine if a multi is effective.
Regarding the consumption in excess, I believe it to be true but we are talking a daily multi and not an overdose of vitamins. The statement is confusing and tends to contradict the earlier statement about multis not being harmful. Why throw in the last paragraph to confuse the issue. It is now a comparison of apples and oranges for shock value in my opinion.
If you eat a healthy, balanced diet then a multi is probably not necessary. For the rest of us it doesn't sound completely clear. I choose to take a multi because I don't see any downside.1 -
I take specific vitamins when I feel I need them. I, like a LARGE percent of the population am deficient in vitamin D I know this because I had labs done. If I don't get enough sunlight that day I pop a vitamin D. I also make sure I don't take it with anything else that can block it's absorption. I do this with other vitamins the exact same way. I don't generally do a multi just because it seems in my mind that everything would block the absorption of everything else. But I think vitamins are very useful when used correctly. I should also note that since I started taking Vitamin D I have had labs done again and my levels have come up significantly so I know they are working and not just BS.2
-
I got my blood tested and found I was deficient in vitamin d, and calcium. My doctor also recommended I take coq10 to help bring my good cholesterol number higher (my bad cholesterol was low, but she thought that my good one should be higher). I take a fish oil to help me absorb them and the vitamin e I take. That's all I do. On occasion I will take 1/2 a b complex tablet (my chiropractor suggested that and/or b6 would help with my uterine cramps).0
-
A vitamin D test costs $150 and up. Insurance only pays for it if it is medically necessary (perhaps obesity is a reason, maybe depression or fatigue - I really don't know).
Careful if you start asking doctors for tests !
Blood calcium test is not a measure of bone density (two completely different things).
Having low calcium in blood is probably a very good thing.
I take a multi, and I'm done.1 -
Now foods brand0
-
All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.0
-
TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
yeah, that's what I've found. I cant get 100% of all the vits/mins without overshooting my calorie goals. A multi helps me fill in those gaps.3 -
TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
It's theoretically possible, but it would require micromanagement the likes of which no one has time (and few have the money) for.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
It's theoretically possible, but it would require micromanagement the likes of which no one has time (and few have the money) for.
Haha I spend faaar too much time on the forums plus logging my food and trying to hit my macros every day as it is. If i also tried to keep my micros perfect i think I'd lose the plot!3 -
TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
Wrong again
http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
Wrong again
http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet
That doesn't look like a diet layout. It looks like a torture plan to me. Jesus. I'll stick to my meats, cheeses, eggs, and a multi.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
Wrong again
http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet
That doesn't look like a diet layout. It looks like a torture plan to me. Jesus. I'll stick to my meats, cheeses, eggs, and a multi.
Fruits and vegetables are torturous to you? Lol ok.
TheDevastator claimed that it was impossible. It took me 5 minutes to find a counterexample.
And if you actually read the article you would have seen meats, cheeses, and eggs listed.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories.
Wrong again
http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet
^^^^
This....
And this....
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-evidence-that-routine-multivitamin-use-should-be-avoided/2 -
I guess it is possible but I couldn't eat that many veggies in one day, maybe in a week.
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »I guess it is possible but I couldn't eat that many veggies in one day, maybe in a week.
1.5 - 2.5 cups per day? Really?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »I guess it is possible but I couldn't eat that many veggies in one day, maybe in a week.
1.5 - 2.5 cups per day? Really?
Pretty much. My average intake is somewhere around 0.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions