Benefits of tanning bed use study http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/6/1645
I take D-3, magnesium, potassium, calcium, and zinc.
I don’t take a multi but eat a good diet with lots of fruits and veggies and meat, fish, dairy, and wine.
Anything I am missing out on?
You really have to look at it to know. For example, the above might be low on chromium or selenium. Not saying it is, but until you check it couldn’t be assumed that these must be sufficient. EFA’s could well be low too, though not necessarily on that either.
Bill what is your take on take on the Superfood article?:
“You might be surprised to hear this, but we’re not aware of anyone in the Biotest family that takes a multivitamin. None of us believe in them. The science is too haphazard.”
TC goes on in the discussion bashing multivitamins.
He say he has yet to find a decent multivit currently on the market.
OP, cheers for this.
[quote]redgladiator wrote:
Bill what is your take on take on the Superfood article?:
“You might be surprised to hear this, but we’re not aware of anyone in the Biotest family that takes a multivitamin. None of us believe in them. The science is too haphazard.”
TC goes on in the discussion bashing multivitamins.
He say he has yet to find a decent multivit currently on the market.[/quote]
There isn’t a contradiction: TC hadn’t talked with me about it and so did not know that I would be an exception to his statement. I also expect there’s largely a matter of what people – even professional writers – literally saying often not being really what they exactly mean. I suspect his objections were to supermarket vitamins and so forth, or to an assumption that any one product can provide everything or that all people require the same in everything.
For example it is not reasonable, IMO, to expect a multivitamin/multimineral to supply calcium needs, or magnesium needs. These should be individually addressed.
It’s hard to read too much into what someone else, one thinks, may have been thinking, but I am guessing he may well have been thinking about the fact that generally speaking, some individual vitamins were at the time and still usually (not always) are available the right way only as separate items.
Or who knows, maybe there’s less to it than that, maybe it’s simply that the particular products he and some others he had talked with had tried had not had detectable benefit for them and so therefore they weren’t fans.
It’s not that this is a thing that can’t be done right: it’s that it usually isn’t, and with the cheap stuff, absolutely never is and can’t be.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
Bill what is your take on take on the Superfood article?:
“You might be surprised to hear this, but we’re not aware of anyone in the Biotest family that takes a multivitamin. None of us believe in them. The science is too haphazard.”
TC goes on in the discussion bashing multivitamins.
He say he has yet to find a decent multivit currently on the market.
There isn’t a contradiction: TC hadn’t talked with me about it and so did not know that I would be an exception to his statement. I also expect there’s largely a matter of what people – even professional writers – literally saying often not being really what they exactly mean. I suspect his objections were to supermarket vitamins and so forth, or to an assumption that any one product can provide everything or that all people require the same in everything.
For example it is not reasonable, IMO, to expect a multivitamin/multimineral to supply calcium needs, or magnesium needs. These should be individually addressed.
It’s hard to read too much into what someone else, one thinks, may have been thinking, but I am guessing he may well have been thinking about the fact that generally speaking, some individual vitamins were at the time and still usually (not always) are available the right way only as separate items.
Or who knows, maybe there’s less to it than that, maybe it’s simply that the particular products he and some others he had talked with had tried had not had detectable benefit for them and so therefore they weren’t fans.
It’s not that this is a thing that can’t be done right: it’s that it usually isn’t, and with the cheap stuff, absolutely never is and can’t be.
[/quote]
To clarify what I wrote in the Superfood article, the problem is with the vitamin formulations that currently exist. They use a kitchen sink approach with little regard to how or if the ingredients compete with each other.
Furthermore, I don’t think you can take any of the current crop of multivitamins and blithely assume all your nutritional needs are being met.
That being said, I definitely believe you can use vitamins or multivitamins to address specific nutritional needs. I also think it’s possible to do a multivitamin the “right way.” We’ll do it sooner or later.
So no, I don’t think Bill and I are on different sides of the fence on this.
[quote]TC wrote:
That being said, I definitely believe you can use vitamins or multivitamins to address specific nutritional needs. I also think it’s possible to do a multivitamin the “right way.” We’ll do it sooner or later.
[/quote]
Thanks TC, this is great news.
EDIT: Thanks Bill.
Also to be precise, I don’t rely on any one “multivitamin/multimineral” either, for that matter. As TC says, there isn’t any one thing that is going to meet all (micro)nutritional needs.
To some extent that is because that shouldn’t be fully the case, e.g. calcium and magnesium should be dealt with according to the individual case. And the remaining and large extent is that those that have tried “really everything” have, even if they excepted those, not done it really right.
In the meantime while waiting on the Biotest product, I’d recommend:
-
Find a product or combination of two products that covers the great majority of the bases for vitamins and minerals and does no harm. The principal areas of introducing screwups would be using dl-form Vitamin E, using a large amount of d-alpha tocopherol, or including iron (if you are male.) It’s probably unlikely these days but providing a large amount of Vitamin A as such (retinol) not as beta-carotene would also be a poor practice.
-
Fill in any vitamin or mineral gaps with individual products. This is likely to include at least Vitamin D but probably also includes a Vitamin E supplement rich in mixed tocopherols and high in gamma-tocopherol, and Vitamin K1/K2.
-
Take care of phytonutrients with Superfood.
-
COnsider, if you have the money, taking a couple of the vitamins in more expensive forms which offer a particular advantage, namely anti-glycation. Specifically, pyridoxamine and benfotiamine. The relevance is likely greater the older that one is.
I wouldn’t advise someone in say their early 20’s in good health and short of money to spend the money for these. (If diabetic however and they are able to afford these without great sacrifice, I would recommend them from age 18 on rather than waiting for aging to be an issue. The reason is that glycation is much more a problem for diabetics than it is for non-diabetics.)
Great response Bill, thanks a bunch, as always your contributions are awesome.
[quote]Wise Guy wrote:
Great response Bill, thanks a bunch, as always your contributions are awesome. [/quote]
x2 thanks Bill
Does anyone take circadian rhythms into consideration when taking Vit D? I keep finding articles linking the importance of the two, but nothing really about the best timing of supplementation.
Dr Mercola lists Vit D as vital for preventing cancer:
Major Cancer Advancement #1: Vitamin D
If people around the world optimized their vitamin D levels, about 30 percent of cancer deaths – which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States – could be prevented each year.
On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure.
If you are treating cancer it is likely that higher blood levels would be even more beneficial, probably on the order of 80-90 ng/ml.
The notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer may still be a new one for some of you, so I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. The risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure. Meanwhile, countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are low or deficient.
In the United States, the late winter average vitamin D is only about 15-18 ng/ml, which is considered a very serious deficiency state. Meanwhile, it?s thought that over 95 percent of U.S. senior citizens may be deficient, along with 85 percent of the American public.
Optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed or oral supplementation, is so important, as vitamin D has a protective effect against cancer in several ways, including:
? Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
? Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
? Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
? Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
Again, to find out the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, and doses to take if you have cancer, please watch my very important one-hour lecture.
[quote]pch2 wrote:
Does anyone take circadian rhythms into consideration when taking Vit D? I keep finding articles linking the importance of the two, but nothing really about the best timing of supplementation. [/quote]
I take mine in the morning since this is when the most Vit D would naturally be produced via sun light in your body.
Ever since I read this article and the other ones related to it, I pretty much bought Vitamin D supplement on the spot. I was hoping to come across a bottle offering 5,000 IU but unfortunately the biggest one they had was 1,000 IU.
so more or less I just take about 3 capsules a day which offers 3,000 IU but does anyone know how effective supplementation absorption is?
The recommended doses are effective.
Quest Labs admits to serious errors in vitamin D testing over the last 2 years. If this was your lab you might want to think about having a retest. Lab Acknowledges Problem With Vitamin D Test - The New York Times
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hog Ear wrote:
Dr Mercola lists
He may actually be right about Vitamin D, but keep in mind he’s a border line nut case.
[/quote]
Being a nut doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong, though.
I found a paper on PubMed a while back where the medical establishment knew back in the 1940’s that people who spend their days out in the sun very rarely got internal forms of cancer. Admittedly skin cancer rates were higher than average, although not abnormally so.