Vitamins
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I won't argue with "does not have to prove effectiveness."
I think I misread your earlier statement "was not able to prove that the product is effective" and now that I realize what you meant am satisfied. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.0 -
I take the vitamins that don't make me sick. I found out that my body doesn't react well with certain brands (even if taken after a meal).
Unfortunately, my body has expensive taste for vegan, organic, food based only, special blend, daily and added supplement brands. I won't feel immediately nauseous and throw them up like with the cheaper and more common vitamins. I have no way of knowing what it is that causes me to be sick exactly.
Price wise it sucks. I have to go with the flow. My brain says buy the cheap stuff but my body says no and pay up! Lol. I try to shop on sale but I can't skip on health.1 -
@Sivadee00 it took me many years to understand that in my case and even longer to act on that understanding. Best of continued success.0
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
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions