Vitamins
Replies
-
Just scroll up, too much to read and links posted when many of us all just want is a clear and short answer. (Please don't feel offended or insult me, I was asking in a good way). I don't understand why the rudeness towards me2 -
Just scroll up, too much to read and links posted when many of us all just want is a clear and short answer. (Please don't feel offended or insult me, I was asking in a good way). I don't understand why the rudeness towards me
@JC77721 we all want clear short answers but they not exist when talking about the human body because there are like a million variables.
Remember social media forums are typically based on personal opinions and not science. Getting advice on vitamins from social media is kind of like getting heart surgery from your massage therapist.
While I understand you are not a reader others that are may one to check out the link below. There is some piece of research behind everything they put in this product and I have read much of that research over the past two years. The validity of said research should be questioned as always. It is my first choice company but remember the supplement industry is of questionable value. It is my guess based on my education and reading 90% of supplement $$$ spent by consumers are a waste of money. Mine bottle just came this week so I have no experience but I have been taking most of the ingredients over the past year or two as I learn more about the human body of an old man. The $2 a day cost of this product would be cheaper in my case and save me a lot of time daily.
lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/item02054/Life-Extension-Mix-Capsules2 -
Standard Process is my favorite vitamin supplement. https://www.standardprocess.com/About-Us/Whole-Food-Philosophy#
They use all organic plants in their supplements (some contain nonorganic bovine or porcine parts, so vegetarians beware). They are on the expensive side, but their products are the only vitamin I have ever taken that I do not burp and taste all day! They are easily digestible and are not filled with niacin (so no bright yellow urine). My favorites are tuna omega 3, trace minerals B complex, and cruciferous complete. Their probiotics are really good too. Some people don't like that the company categorizes their supplements by health issue (Pic example), but it doesn't bother me, just do your own research first. I'm a firm believer in getting your nutrition from whole foods, but sometimes a little extra boost doesn't hurt.
1 -
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »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.
So what if you can't/don't eat Dairy, Meat, Gluten, Eggs, certain fruits/veggies for food allergies or any other reason. I'd be interested to see a menu for that. Not everyone can/likes to eat certain foods, so you are proving a point but you are using the most strict and perfect scenario to do so and that isn't always realistic.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »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.
Yes, they are listed, in quantities so low as to not have a prayer of knocking a dent in my caloric needs. That was my point. About 80% of what's on there is atrocious, and I'd personally rather live on Spam and multivitamins, and that's saying something.1 -
I just really don't want to resort to supplements
0 -
You dont need vitamins. Your body is more efficient at absorbing nutrients when you have less of them. And especially if you eat gluten ,taking vitamins is a waste. Youre just peeing it out. Id be careful.0
-
ninhogorgfan wrote: »You dont need vitamins. Your body is more efficient at absorbing nutrients when you have less of them. And especially if you eat gluten ,taking vitamins is a waste. Youre just peeing it out. Id be careful.
That just doesn't make sense.2 -
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
"Note: Biotin, choline, and chromium are not precisely measured in foods and thus not included in our analysis."
Those should be supplemented then if there is no way to precisely measure them in foods. Biotin is a cheap vitamin. Choline is high in eggs and sardines but a good supplement is lecithin which is really high in choline. Chromium should be taken to balance blood sugar and may help prevent diabetes. Also most people forget about vitamin k2 which is important but not in many foods.1 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Unless you have a specific deficiency, the answer is none
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-evidence-that-routine-multivitamin-use-should-be-avoided/
Science based medicine is a joke. Skeptics don't know what they are talking about.
Science bad........
Bad science is bad.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »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.
All lousy sources if you ask me. Most are based on observational studies and they don't distinguish between high quality and low quality supplements. I had to bold it because it's so important!1 -
ninhogorgfan wrote: »You dont need vitamins. Your body is more efficient at absorbing nutrients when you have less of them. And especially if you eat gluten ,taking vitamins is a waste. Youre just peeing it out. Id be careful.
I know right. Whole wheat bread has so many vitamins, and it is because it steals it from the soil. Why would anyone think it is going to do anything else in your stomach? You're best just eating the lowest nutrient foods because those are the weakest ones - your digestive track will overpower and take the nutrients it needs from those foods too weak to hang on to them.
Ah, yes. I fondly remember the days of walking out into the field and picking my loaf of whole wheat bread for the day. With mineral depletion of the soil, the ground where I live no longer produces whole wheat. It's only non-fortified white bread now. I'mma be so healthy through reduced nutrition. It will be awesome.
/sarcasm (because some people won't get it)2 -
TheDevastator wrote: »
All lousy sources if you ask me. Most are based on observational studies and they don't distinguish between high quality and low quality supplements. I had to bold it because it's so important!
Yeah, even with such poor outcomes, we know there must be tons of studies showing effects of vitamins having effects when they're high quality that don't get published, right? Isn't it a shame that the way academic research is biased, they tend to publish that show no effect all the time, and desk-drawer all those high quality studies that show they work? Just imagine if all the studies out there now were all the ones that had the most success and instead there was a bias not to publish negative results? Could you imagine if there was these were actually the best results of the studies that actually showed results because the quality was good enough to efficacious?
The truth is out there if you know where to look. Most of studies that show vitamins really work are from the 1930s-1970s. This is just one source of what vitamins can do: orthomolecular.org/library/jom/ Most of this information is copyrighted so I can't just copy and paste studies.
I do believe it's better to get your vitamins from food sources if you can but sometimes the only way you can achieve a therapeutic dose is to supplement.1 -
I take a supplement by a company called Life's Fortune. It has all the needed vitamins and will give you the extra energy boost without the jitters. I LOVE these! Look it up. 0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Lady_Spartan15 wrote: »If you wanted to take a basic vitamin, I would say go for a multi-vitamin. No brand in particular would be better than another.
If you have no vitamin deficiency they you really don't need a vitamin. You can get all you need by eating a wel rounded healthy diet.
The first part is actually incorrect. Multivitamins vary WILDLY. What is on the bottle is rarely what you actually get. Feel free to look up some third party, multisample analysis. labdoor is a good place to start.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »TheDevastator 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
"Note: Biotin, choline, and chromium are not precisely measured in foods and thus not included in our analysis."
Those should be supplemented then if there is no way to precisely measure them in foods. Biotin is a cheap vitamin. Choline is high in eggs and sardines but a good supplement is lecithin which is really high in choline. Chromium should be taken to balance blood sugar and may help prevent diabetes. Also most people forget about vitamin k2 which is important but not in many foods.
How do you know the choline is high in those foods?
Harvard says there's no way to precisely measure them in foods but world's healthiest foods and other nutrition sites give some idea about the amount in foods. It's good you caught that.
whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=50
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ninhogorgfan wrote: »You dont need vitamins. Your body is more efficient at absorbing nutrients when you have less of them. And especially if you eat gluten ,taking vitamins is a waste. Youre just peeing it out. Id be careful.
Yes you absolutely could need vitamins, food is obviously a better source than supplements(hard to tell the quality and potency of supplements) but food is not as nutritious as it once was because our soil is not as nutritious as it once was. I supplement what I don't get through my diet and my fasting blood labs have gone back into normal numbers since doing so. It's all about getting good quality vitamins, taking it correctly at the correct time i.e. empty or full stomach and what you take it with since some vitamins will compete with the absorption of others. But if you can't get it through your diet then there is nothing wrong with supplementing, especially vitamin D which a lot of people are too low on.
0 -
If you live in the Western world then you likely don't need a vitamin supplement, but taking a multivitamin likely won't hurt. I buy a cheap gummy multivitamin as precaution.
While supplement companies love to tout purity standards, the simple fact that they are regulated as a supplement shows that the manufacturer was not able to prove that the product is effective, only that it is safe when taken in the recommended dosage along with the support of a medical professional.1 -
I take 2,000 IU D3 as recommended for vitamin D maintenance by my doctor. I take Dr. Best magnesium supplement which has really helped with the muscle cramping I used to get. I also take a B-12.
I don't take fish oil any more because I pretty much eat fish at some point 5 out of 7 days per week. I'm in the camp of a multi vitamin won't hurt you if taken as directed, but I ran out about a month ago and just haven't replaced them.1 -
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
I don't take multivitamins because I like to control the forms and quantities.
- The RDA quantities are to prevent deficiency diseases, not for optimal health. Their Vitamin C recommendation is laughably low.
- Regarding forms - in at least one of the Vitamin E studies with negative outcomes the cheaper, synthetic version of E was used.0 -
Vitamin Code Raw vitamins are great, derived of fruits and veggie sources and organic0
-
If you live in the Western world then you likely don't need a vitamin supplement, but taking a multivitamin likely won't hurt. I buy a cheap gummy multivitamin as precaution.
While supplement companies love to tout purity standards, the simple fact that they are regulated as a supplement shows that the manufacturer was not able to prove that the product is effective, only that it is safe when taken in the recommended dosage along with the support of a medical professional.
@CSARdiver wouldn't you agree that iron supplements are effective for treating anemia? What about Vitamin D supplements for treating Vit D deficiency?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »If you live in the Western world then you likely don't need a vitamin supplement, but taking a multivitamin likely won't hurt. I buy a cheap gummy multivitamin as precaution.
While supplement companies love to tout purity standards, the simple fact that they are regulated as a supplement shows that the manufacturer was not able to prove that the product is effective, only that it is safe when taken in the recommended dosage along with the support of a medical professional.
@CSARdiver wouldn't you agree that iron supplements are effective for treating anemia? What about Vitamin D supplements for treating Vit D deficiency?
Let's not confuse taking a prescribed supplement for a diagnosed medical condition.
From a regulatory perspective when prescribed to treat a medical condition the product is no longer a supplement, but a medical prescription product. Your physician is using their medical license to offer a more affordable alternative.
Many supplement manufacturers are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical firms. The supplements are launched separately from the prescription versions of multivitamins as they have an easier and incredibly cheaper regulatory pathway. 2.6B vs. 25k USD.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »If you live in the Western world then you likely don't need a vitamin supplement, but taking a multivitamin likely won't hurt. I buy a cheap gummy multivitamin as precaution.
While supplement companies love to tout purity standards, the simple fact that they are regulated as a supplement shows that the manufacturer was not able to prove that the product is effective, only that it is safe when taken in the recommended dosage along with the support of a medical professional.
@CSARdiver wouldn't you agree that iron supplements are effective for treating anemia? What about Vitamin D supplements for treating Vit D deficiency?
Let's not confuse taking a prescribed supplement for a diagnosed medical condition.
From a regulatory perspective when prescribed to treat a medical condition the product is no longer a supplement, but a medical prescription product. Your physician is using their medical license to offer a more affordable alternative.
Many supplement manufacturers are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical firms. The supplements are launched separately from the prescription versions of multivitamins as they have an easier and incredibly cheaper regulatory pathway. 2.6B vs. 25k USD.
Ok, I'm confused - we don't need prescriptions to buy iron and D. I used get some iron directly from my doctor but it was ineffective and now I get a different form of iron from Amazon. My levels are back up out of anemic and into Low Normal.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »If you live in the Western world then you likely don't need a vitamin supplement, but taking a multivitamin likely won't hurt. I buy a cheap gummy multivitamin as precaution.
While supplement companies love to tout purity standards, the simple fact that they are regulated as a supplement shows that the manufacturer was not able to prove that the product is effective, only that it is safe when taken in the recommended dosage along with the support of a medical professional.
@CSARdiver wouldn't you agree that iron supplements are effective for treating anemia? What about Vitamin D supplements for treating Vit D deficiency?
Let's not confuse taking a prescribed supplement for a diagnosed medical condition.
From a regulatory perspective when prescribed to treat a medical condition the product is no longer a supplement, but a medical prescription product. Your physician is using their medical license to offer a more affordable alternative.
Many supplement manufacturers are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical firms. The supplements are launched separately from the prescription versions of multivitamins as they have an easier and incredibly cheaper regulatory pathway. 2.6B vs. 25k USD.
Ok, I'm confused - we don't need prescriptions to buy iron and D. I used get some iron directly from my doctor but it was ineffective and now I get a different form of iron from Amazon. My levels are back up out of anemic and into Low Normal.
Understandable - regulatory rarely makes sense and is an overblown risk assessment process.
You don't need a prescription for the supplement version of the product (iron and D) thanks to the low and established risk profile of these products at that potency, so you can purchase the supplement version of vitamin D (lowered IU). There are prescription strength (higher IU) iron and vitamin D products available, but most physicians would not use these and opt for a verbal recommendation to use a supplement.
That's wonderful that this product was effective for treating your condition, but the key point I am making is that the manufacturer and applicant does not have to prove effectiveness under the regulatory process.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
- 427 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