The TRUTH about Vitamins and Minerals in the SOIL!

[PAUL-E]

Should we really take a multi vitamin? what is your take on this?

Disclaimer: I sure don't have 100% trust in any government especially ours. I'll start to have more trust when they get rid of bribery OHH sorry I mean lobbyist.

 

[Re-Ride]

Not if folic acid and or cyanobobalomin are components imo.

 

[Bama Boy]

**** **** **** ! LOL good Info LOL ! But he Loves the F Word !

 

[Re-Ride]

A simplistic approach to nutrition and supplementation On one side of the spectrum cheap multis give a false sense of security. A mere 100% RDA in a base of rice bran, silica or sawdust will might prevent Beriberi, scurvy and other diseases in those with healthy absorption and metabolism but that's about it. On the other end blowing bucks on high end designer formulas usually isn't the answer either.

Age, underlying health issues, activity level, exposure to environmental toxins, anticipated susceptibility to disease based upon familiar history are a few of the things to consider when putting together a supplement plan. Most should begin with an individual assessment which includes the above considerations along with serum testing.

Many will benefit from as much as 5,000% RDA of B vitamins ( careful on B6, pyridoxine ) or may need to dose more than once a day. Understand what your body can and can't store. There are ideal intake levels of zinc for example and it should be taken with copper but not at the same time as other nutrients. Just because it's on the label doesn't mean it is absorbed or bio-available.

As we become good label readers we gain awareness of high levels of adulterants, useless fillers and low grade ingredients. We're likely better off with mixed tocopherols in the right amount than a cheap synthetic acetate which is not only useless but may be harmful. Ditto ergocalciferol instead of cholcalciferol which many will want to supplement at 5000 IU daily not the microgram amounts in the multi. One of my biggest gripes with multis is the listing by name of ingredients that consumers may have heard are beneficial but do not understand the insignificant quantities contained therein. Lutein/zeazanthin is a good example. One can't pop 2 or 3 multis without getting too much selenium for instance where a Brazil nut or two a day is a better source.

The sector that will never take more than one tab or capsule a day should at least take a high quality multi that has been independently assayed someplace like Labdoor. Better than nothing but far from ideal.

The presentation mentions chronic illness. Some of the best resources on supplementation are sites dedicated to cancer and HIV where absorption, metabolism and toxic therapies are factors.
http://www.medibolics.com/Vitamins2.htm

 

[Bama Boy]

Whats a good copper sup. ?

A simplistic approach to nutrition and supplementation On one side of the spectrum cheap multis give a false sense of security. A mere 100% RDA in a base of rice bran, silica or sawdust will might prevent Beriberi, scurvy and other diseases in those with healthy absorption and metabolism but that's about it. On the other end blowing bucks on high end designer formulas usually isn't the answer either.

Age, underlying health issues, activity level, exposure to environmental toxins, anticipated susceptibility to disease based upon familiar history are a few of the things to consider when putting together a supplement plan. Most should begin with an individual assessment which includes the above considerations along with serum testing.

Many will benefit from as much as 5,000% RDA of B vitamins ( careful on B6, pyridoxine ) or may need to dose more than once a day. Understand what your body can and can't store. There are ideal intake levels of zinc for example and it should be taken with copper but not at the same time as other nutrients. Just because it's on the label doesn't mean it is absorbed or bio-available.

As we become good label readers we gain awareness of high levels of adulterants, useless fillers and low grade ingredients. We're likely better off with mixed tocopherols in the right amount than a cheap synthetic acetate which is not only useless but may be harmful. Ditto ergocalciferol instead of cholcalciferol which many will want to supplement at 5000 IU daily not the microgram amounts in the multi. One of my biggest gripes with multis is the listing by name of ingredients that consumers may have heard are beneficial but do not understand the insignificant quantities contained therein. Lutein/zeazanthin is a good example. One can't pop 2 or 3 multis without getting too much selenium for instance where a Brazil nut or two a day is a better source.

The sector that will never take more than one tab or capsule a day should at least take a high quality multi that has been independently assayed someplace like Labdoor. Better than nothing but far from ideal.

The presentation mentions chronic illness. Some of the best resources on supplementation are sites dedicated to cancer and HIV where absorption, metabolism and toxic therapies are factors.
http://www.medibolics.com/Vitamins2.htm

 

[Re-Ride]

The theory that expensive chelated minerals are more bioavilable or better absorbed is far from proven. Almost always you are going to see Cu provided along with Zn.
https://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/283.full
There's your example why this thread could get off tack with 90 pages on two nutrients alone. There are folks who swear by ZMA. Consider the approach used by Examine.com when deciding how strong the evidence is for any specific supplement. Men certainly need Zn. Threads here in the past year have highlighted interesting studies on how it is thought to be absorbed and utilized.

Now back to One-a-day vs GummyVites vs MegaMen...

Not that I'm in support of all points made by these authors, here's a few things to think about:

http://peakmodernliving.com/6-reason-99-9-of-the-people-should-not-take-multivitamins

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/should-i-take-a-multivitamin/

 

[Re-Ride]

For all you neewbs reading stuff on the web, check the sources. Op raises awareness that in many cases food isn't as nutritious as it was in bygone days. Nothing new. It's natural but not science to assume for instance that "organic" is always the solution. I avoid the Dirty Dozen as published by EWG but not because I'm hoping for higher mineral content.

Bad doesn't get fixed with more bad like a cheap multi from CVS or an overpriced one from GNC.

Nonsense is posted in a ratio of 100,000:1 compared to solid evidence:

"Strawberries are not only delicious berry and a wonderful dessert, but also an active therapeutic agent. It improves appetite, beneficial for digestion, has a diaphoretic and diuretic effect, normalizes salt metabolism, quenches thirst, promotes hematopoiesis. In folk medicine, strawberries has long been used for anemia and diarrhea in children.
Strawberry is considered an excellent treatment for beriberi, hypertension, gout, atherosclerosis, uterine bleeding.
Infusion of strawberries is recommended to use as a diuretic, diaphoretic and laxative agent.
In addition, strawberries kills pathogens intestinal infection, as well as staphylococci, streptococci, pneumococci, influenza viruses. Infusion of berries useful to rinse your mouth with stomatitis and angina. And the infusion of dried or fresh leaves of strawberries helps with bleeding from hemorrhoids. Strawberry cleanses the intestines and blood, helps with obesity, effectively influences the metabolism of iodine in Graves' disease."


How about a nice bowl of raspberry ketones ala Oz?