Vitamins
Replies
-
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 -
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?
not everyday day after day of veggies to keep my micronutrients up0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »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?
not everyday day after day of veggies to keep my micronutrients up
You don't feel like it =/= impossible. Or even hard.
3 -
I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit. There's no compelling evidence they are harmful in the amounts typically consumed; studies which claim to show this are inconsistent and the effects are weak.6 -
rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.
The evidence shows no benefit because it lumps together those without vitamin deficiencies (a large population) with those having vitamin deficiencies (a small population). In the overall population sense, yes, there is no benefit. If you, as a single individual, are in that small population with vitamin deficiencies, there is a strong benefit. It's no consolation that vitamin deficiencies are fairly uncommon if you're one of the folks that happens to have them.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to prophylactically take multivitamins in case you're in that small population versus having all of the blood tests to determine if you will benefit or not. I could buy a lifetime's worth of multivitamins for the cost I would have to pay to get all my vitamin levels evaluated once.4 -
rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.
The evidence shows no benefit because it lumps together those without vitamin deficiencies (a large population) with those having vitamin deficiencies (a small population). In the overall population sense, yes, there is no benefit. If you, as a single individual, are in that small population with vitamin deficiencies, there is a strong benefit. It's no consolation that vitamin deficiencies are fairly uncommon if you're one of the folks that happens to have them.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to prophylactically take multivitamins in case you're in that small population versus having all of the blood tests to determine if you will benefit or not. I could buy a lifetime's worth of multivitamins for the cost I would have to pay to get all my vitamin levels evaluated once.
And if you have the slightest understanding of probability you would understand that routine supplementation will be more likely to cause harm than good.
Or you could just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the evidence.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.
The evidence shows no benefit because it lumps together those without vitamin deficiencies (a large population) with those having vitamin deficiencies (a small population). In the overall population sense, yes, there is no benefit. If you, as a single individual, are in that small population with vitamin deficiencies, there is a strong benefit. It's no consolation that vitamin deficiencies are fairly uncommon if you're one of the folks that happens to have them.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to prophylactically take multivitamins in case you're in that small population versus having all of the blood tests to determine if you will benefit or not. I could buy a lifetime's worth of multivitamins for the cost I would have to pay to get all my vitamin levels evaluated once.
And if you have the slightest understanding of probability you would understand that routine supplementation will be more likely to cause harm than good.
Or you could just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the evidence.
I haven't seen any reliable evidence there is in fact any harm. Certainly it is possible to overdose on certain vitamins taken in great excess, but that isn't the typical use case of a multivitamin.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.
The evidence shows no benefit because it lumps together those without vitamin deficiencies (a large population) with those having vitamin deficiencies (a small population). In the overall population sense, yes, there is no benefit. If you, as a single individual, are in that small population with vitamin deficiencies, there is a strong benefit. It's no consolation that vitamin deficiencies are fairly uncommon if you're one of the folks that happens to have them.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to prophylactically take multivitamins in case you're in that small population versus having all of the blood tests to determine if you will benefit or not. I could buy a lifetime's worth of multivitamins for the cost I would have to pay to get all my vitamin levels evaluated once.
And if you have the slightest understanding of probability you would understand that routine supplementation will be more likely to cause harm than good.
Or you could just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the evidence.
I haven't seen any reliable evidence there is in fact any harm. Certainly it is possible to overdose on certain vitamins taken in great excess, but that isn't the typical use case of a multivitamin.
From the article I posted earlier
In 2008, a Cochrane Collaboration review found that people in trials who were given supplements of vitamin A, vitamin E, and beta carotene had a higher death rate. And there's some evidence that excess folic acid (the synthetic version of folate, a vitamin found abundantly in vegetables, fruits, and grains) may be contributing to an uptick in colorectal cancer. Multi vitamins contain the recommended daily amount — 400 micrograms (mcg) — but folic acid is also added to breakfast cereals and enriched grain and cereal products, including breads, rice, and pasta. A person taking a multivitamin can easily exceed the recommended total intake, and maybe even the safe upper limit of 1,000 mcg. (Excess isn't a problem with folate found naturally in foods.)
The risk of harm isn't great, but the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence of benefits.
The large body of accumulated evidence has important public health and clinical implications. Evidence is sufficient to advise against routine supplementation, and we should translate null and negative findings into action. The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided. This message is especially true for the general population with no clear evidence of micronutrient deficiencies, who represent most supplement users in the United States and in other countries
...
Although available evidence does not rule out small benefits or harms or large benefits or harms in a small subgroup of the population, we believe that the case is closed— supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough
http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=17892531 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »I definitely do take a multivitamin.
I fully realize that in a majority of people, there is no benefit to doing so. However, I am not a population, I am an individual, and for me, taking a multivitamin is like having homeowner's insurance.
The odds are very strong that I will pay in far more money to homeowner's insurance than I will ever get out in claims - which currently stand at $0. That's how insurance companies make money, after all. However, insurance allows you to accept a large chance for a small financial harm (i.e. making the monthly payments) in exchange for removing a small chance for a large financial harm (i.e. the risk of losing your house to misfortune). Insurance makes the average case worse, but the worst case better.
I see vitamins as insurance against nutrient deficiency. Most likely they are nothing but a waste of money, but if I would otherwise be deficient somewhere, they could provide a significant benefit.
Except that the evidence shows no benefit. In fact, the evidence of harm (albeit small ) outweighs the evidence of benefits.
So if you're going to use an insurance analogy it would be more akin to someone buying collision insurance on a $500 beater.
The evidence shows no benefit because it lumps together those without vitamin deficiencies (a large population) with those having vitamin deficiencies (a small population). In the overall population sense, yes, there is no benefit. If you, as a single individual, are in that small population with vitamin deficiencies, there is a strong benefit. It's no consolation that vitamin deficiencies are fairly uncommon if you're one of the folks that happens to have them.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to prophylactically take multivitamins in case you're in that small population versus having all of the blood tests to determine if you will benefit or not. I could buy a lifetime's worth of multivitamins for the cost I would have to pay to get all my vitamin levels evaluated once.
And if you have the slightest understanding of probability you would understand that routine supplementation will be more likely to cause harm than good.
Or you could just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the evidence.
I haven't seen any reliable evidence there is in fact any harm. Certainly it is possible to overdose on certain vitamins taken in great excess, but that isn't the typical use case of a multivitamin.
From the article I posted earlier
In 2008, a Cochrane Collaboration review found that people in trials who were given supplements of vitamin A, vitamin E, and beta carotene had a higher death rate. And there's some evidence that excess folic acid (the synthetic version of folate, a vitamin found abundantly in vegetables, fruits, and grains) may be contributing to an uptick in colorectal cancer. Multi vitamins contain the recommended daily amount — 400 micrograms (mcg) — but folic acid is also added to breakfast cereals and enriched grain and cereal products, including breads, rice, and pasta. A person taking a multivitamin can easily exceed the recommended total intake, and maybe even the safe upper limit of 1,000 mcg. (Excess isn't a problem with folate found naturally in foods.)
The risk of harm isn't great, but the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence of benefits.
The large body of accumulated evidence has important public health and clinical implications. Evidence is sufficient to advise against routine supplementation, and we should translate null and negative findings into action. The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided. This message is especially true for the general population with no clear evidence of micronutrient deficiencies, who represent most supplement users in the United States and in other countries
...
Although available evidence does not rule out small benefits or harms or large benefits or harms in a small subgroup of the population, we believe that the case is closed— supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough
http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1789253
On the Cochrane Review:
1. If you look at their more detailed data, only two vitamins (beta-carotene and vitamin E) showed statistical significance, and those that did had a very weak effect that only very barely squeaked by their 95% CI. None of the findings would have been significant had the authors chosen a stronger confidence interval (99% instead of 95%).
2. There is no indication in the paper what the average doses were for beta-carotene and vitamin E in their experimental groups, nor any attempt to draw a dose-response for those. Other studies have suggested very small harm caused by extremely high doses (5-15 times the RDA) of each, none I have seen shown this at doses typical of multivitamins.
On folate: jury's definitely still out. Nature just published a meta-analysis showing no risk of cancer. The studies that do show an increased risk are giving far beyond normal RDAs - often 10-20 times the RDA. It's also very well known that insufficient folate increases risk of colorectal cancer, too, and folic acid supplementation in the US is thought to be the cause of colorectal cancer rates in the US being significantly below those in other countries in spite of being worse in terms of other risk factors.
Taken as a whole - I think the studies you've referenced show that it may not be wise to take megavitamins, but nothing there would suggest to me that the doses found in a typical multivitamin are harmful.
In fact, I think overall the studies drive home the point of how safe vitamins are in general. Even extremely high doses, an order of magnitude more than required, the only potentially harmful effects that have been identified are extremely small in magnitude and only just barely cross the lowest threshold of statistical significance, and even those are only conflicting reports shown for a few vitamins.5 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »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?
not everyday day after day of veggies to keep my micronutrients up
You don't feel like it =/= impossible. Or even hard.
I knew it wasn't impossible, I just meant in my case and in a lot of people's cases where they don't like veggies.
"All I know is that you can't get all your required micronutrients from food without going way over on calories without paying more for food or eating a fair amount of veggies or both." There, I fixed it.2 -
Supplements are regulated by the FDA. They are just not allowed to make claims regarding treatment of specific illnesses. I wouldn't recommend picking just any vitamin. Last year there were several companies who got in trouble by the FDA for not meeting purity and/or potency standards.
Just wanted to jump in and clear up some misinformation- supplements absolutely are NOT regulated by the FDA. They do not have to meet ANY purity and/or potency standards. If you are lucky, they follow GMP (good manufacturing practices). This means they voluntarily promise to meet some level of quality that is monitored by other organizations that are completely separate from the FDA and the government. The USP seal is a good one to look for, but there are a few other places that offer their seal of approval. The ONLY thing the FDA can do regarding supplements of any kind is to react and remove them from the market after they cause harm.
The companies you mention that were all over the news did not get in trouble by the FDA for not containing what they claimed to- those tests were not done by the FDA. As long as a supplement does not claim to cure or prevent a disease on their package labeling they are free to put whatever the heck they want in there in whatever amounts they want. They could get in trouble, however, if they're found to contain compounds that are usually regulated (which the FDA would not test for unless the product causes harm).
Supplements and "natural remedies" of all kinds make me wary for this exact reason, and many people do not realize that the FDA is not allowed to regulate these things. These items do not have to undergo any testing for purity, potency, safety, and do not have to prove any level of efficacy, or even have to contain what they claim. These wholistic and natural supplement companies make bank since they get to avoid all of that.
That being said, if people wanna take stuff I say go ahead and take stuff. Aim for anything with a USP label or label claiming GMP. Any nutritionist or doctor will tell you that food is the absolute best source of nutrients if you are able to get them that way. If you're deficient in any area, you can go ahead and take vitamins targeting that, or just take a general basic multivitamin.3 -
JanetYellen wrote: »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.
True. If it were high, it could indicate bone breakdown or parathyroid disorder.1 -
https://riordanclinic.org/2013/10/vitamins-d3-and-k2-the-dynamic-duo/
This covers the risks of taking vitamin D3 (actually it functions as a hormone) if one is low on Vitamin K2 (not Vit K1) clogging arteries and damaging heart valves with Calcium.
Vit D drives in the calcium but K2 tells it where to go is seems. I shoot for Vit D levels of 75-90 now. I was stuck in the 20's for years.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://riordanclinic.org/2013/10/vitamins-d3-and-k2-the-dynamic-duo/
This covers the risks of taking vitamin D3 (actually it functions as a hormone) if one is low on Vitamin K2 (not Vit K1) clogging arteries and damaging heart valves with Calcium.
Vit D drives in the calcium but K2 tells it where to go is seems. I shoot for Vit D levels of 75-90 now. I was stuck in the 20's for years.
I try to take Vitamin K2 with my vitamin D pills. Also talking about calcium, magnesium also prevents and treats calcification of soft tissues.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24290571
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1838878
1 -
Hypocalcemia is not a very good thing. It's a bad thing. It can be a fatal thing.JanetYellen wrote: »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.
0 -
Where calcium is concerned, the bones are often broken down because the calcium is low, so it has to get pulled from somewhere. If you see a transient hypercalcemic reading, you have to suspect that it was caused by a hypocalcemic issue.mommarnurse wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »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.
True. If it were high, it could indicate bone breakdown or parathyroid disorder.
Hypoparathyroidism is one if the major causes of hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia can (and often does) indicate a parathyroid issue.
It's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. It can be a tetany thing.
0 -
Many of us don't like reading researches or long posts guys, in a few words, are multivitamins good or not?0
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions