Vitamins

JC77721 wrote: »

ccrdragon wrote: »

JC77721 wrote: »

Many of us don't like reading researches or long posts guys, in a few words, are multivitamins good or not?

and this, in a nutshell, pretty much sums up what is wrong with this country today and why people are advocating for the 'nanny state'... I shudder for the future...

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-Capsules

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.

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.

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.

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!

sentipede wrote: »

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.

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.