Vitiman Shopping (hair, blood, enzymes, quality)

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by Giacona

I need some help and choosing where and what brand Vitamin's to buy. I always see the cheap brands on sale at shop rite and Wal-Mart such as Sundown Nature made and even centrum. I was told you would get better quality Vitamins at a store like GNC or Vitamin Shoppe but you will pay a bit more. Vitamin Shoppe was trying to tell me that the products they sell are all natural and go through a different process than other brands. The person told me the other brands are made with synthetic's which might not be better for me. It sounds like a sales pitch to me, but I have to say I may have to agree. I once bought a fish oil for five dollars or so at Wal-Mart and it wasn't bad, but the Nordic natural’s one I use now I like much better. Someone also told me that when you buy the cheaper brand fish oil you need to be careful as they could have mercury in them.

My doctor wants me taking a daily multi vitamin, fish oil and a vitamin D3 1000 IU. Do I need to worry about where I buy and what I pay? I am 32 years old male if that matters.

It is always a good idea to buy a good quality vitamin. In some cases the binders that are used in inexpensive supplements can cause the vitamin to not dissolve completely and pass through the body. Whenever I recommend a vitamin supplement brand I always recommend NOW products.

Whenever possible you should try to determine what the binders and flowing agents are. I have no great love for Magnesium Stearate (even from plant-based sources).

Dr. Mercola makes a superior product which does not contain shellac or magnesium stearate or any other objectionable ingredient. Just google him and his well known website will appear.

20yrsinBranson

[AnonChick]

I did experience some stomach upset taking a multivitamin, years ago. It was a big tablet, and it smelled bad. I learned that many supplements have that smell, I don't recall why - I do remember knowing at the time.

I've since switched to a children's chewable (BJ's warehouse brand Berkley & Jensen), and I haven't had any trouble since.

[nhdriver]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Exactly!!!! Almost everyone can do it. Eat a variety of foods from a variety of sources. You can get every micronutrient you need, just from food.

Soils can vary from place to place. That's why you need vegetables and fruits from a variety of sources. For example, some regions of the world do not have enough iodine in their soils. In the USA, iodized salt helps ensure that most of us get enough iodine. It still averages out; what one meal lacks, you will usually get in another. Many foods we eat are supplemented with vitamins and minerals. If you eat those and take additional vitamins and minerals, you may end up getting too much of some things, such as vitamin A, which can cause problems.

You still have not told us what evidence you are using to support your belief. The facts do not.

Suzy I want to believe you and I do eat a fairly clean diet six to seven meals a day including fiber intake of about 30-40g aside from taking in 250-280g of lean protein and about 30% of my diet comes from complex carbs. But personally I don't think it's enough and I feel a day & night difference with proper supplementation and I always switch including new studies, right combination, and ultimately what I feel is optimal for my health. At the same time every person's body differs where I hope you agree and supplement accordingly; it's not just vitamins, macronutrient supplementation during workout and other products to support the body function.

Few professionals including well renowned expert in nutrition therapy like Dr. Esselstyn (who is very helpful in real life by the way), Dr. Lawrence Wilson, Dr. Gerson (you probably heard about him), etc. Even Dr. Esselstyn believes that in order for someone to not need to supplement, one would need to eat be eating mostly green leafy vegetables to get adequate amount of nutrients. Even all these experts as an example don't agree on everything. There was a clip I'll have to dig up sometime where Esselstyn and others doctors who are mostly on the same page as far as nutrition goes but they have subtle difference in their theory when it comes to what nutrients including minerals and foods that is good if not bad.

Dr. Wilson was a long time believer in eating whole foods including raw salad. As much as enzymes and some of the minerals are destroyed, he after 30 years, believe that it's better for humans to actually cook them (as much as I was a bit curious in his theory noted on his site Welcome to). Then you have someone like Dr. Gerson that started the Vitamin C megadosing for cancer treatment. We probably shouldn't get into that as it'll just get political with one side saying it doesn't work, another say it's barred due to pressure from pharmaceutical companies to avoid such cheap form of treatment by making it illegal to publish articles that are not scientifically proven.

On the topic of lab made & cofactor debate, and this may go against your belief but Vic Shayne Ph.D over at University of Natural Medicine don't believe that labs can create anything close to cofactors found in whole foods. He has a book called "Whole Food Nutrition - Missing Link in Vitamin Therapy".

"Since the above types of food ingredients are natural, they contain a host of nutrients that exist within a “complex.” A food complex includes not only vitamins and minerals, but also many cofactors (helper nutrients) that are found in nature’s foods as a result of the evolutionary process. Cofactors and food complexes therefore cannot be made in a laboratory nor can they be duplicated by scientists. Many nutritional doctors and researchers conclude that cofactors are often more valuable than vitamins and minerals, and that food cannot be duplicated due to its complexity, dynamism and energy. Cofactors within nature’s foods (which are found also in whole food supplements) include, but are not limited to: vitamins, minerals, terpenes, trace mineral activators, enzymes, co-enzymes, chlorophyll, lipids, essential fatty acids, fiber, carotenoids, antioxidants, flavonoids, pigments, amino acids, whole proteins and more."

James Duke another Ph.D who worked for National Cancer Institute said:

For years I worked with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborative cancer screening and collaborated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) AIDS and Designer Food programs. I watched their scientists and contractors futilely follow their directed fractionations in search of the single super silver bullet compound in the herbal potpourri. It became clear that there were almost always, not one, but many closely related chemicals in a species, each of which contributed in slightly different ways to the activity of the whole herb. More often than not, these chemicals and their activities were synergistic, the whole herb being more active proportionately, than even the strongest single isolated ingredient…t adds up to the whole plant being better than the sum of its known parts…Silver bullets, single solitary chemicals, are still even more likely to upset our genetic phytochemical ratios, and that’s why they are more liable to have serious side effects than natural remedies our genes have experienced over the millennia.

There are other sources and articles but at least for my belief Suzy, is that it's just better to supplement with whole foods; even if you say Megafood or even other better brands may not all have truly 100% potent minerals that's going to be absorbed by the body. To me it just seems safer as far as something Centrum or other supplements that are readily available on the market that are not food derived. Even whole foods supplements I understand aren't going to be absorbed by the body completely either. It's like the organic/natural/non-organic debate. We try to eat and know where the food source is from, not just limited to grocery stores but local farms.

At least we can agree on proper dieting with whole foods and not just supplementation. I'll look into it more, like I said, I'm open to any ideas, theories and researches that aren't often found through the net or even books. I've talked to manufacturers, other nutritionists, doctors (including homeopathic and naturalpathic) and people that are familiar with the matter and every single one of them seem to have different ideas when it comes to supplementation.

[in_newengland]

I order all my supplements from vitacost--they appear to carry quality brands.

Several years ago I had an excellent doctor who was well versed in nutrition and she always recommended quality brands. It mainly had to do with the types of vitamin or mineral that your body can actually use as opposed to something cheap that your body can't absorb. One example would be calcium carbonate vs calcium citrate--the citrate is much better.

Other reasons for top name brands were the fillers used in the cheap brands and, as in fish oil, contaminants such as mercury. Also, cheap multivitamin brands will skimp on certain ingredients to save money--it used to be common for them to be really low on B-6 because that was more expensive.

I would never buy supplements in a drug store. I caved in and did it a few weeks ago and ended up with something called magnesium that wasn't. Waste of money. Hardly any magnesium in it and a lot of junk that I didn't want. Wrong kind of magnesium for absorption too. Well, I was trying to save money and also save time running off to a natural food store but I ended up at the natural food store anyway.

Yes, I would definitely recommended buying qualilty.

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by nhdriver

Suzy I want to believe you and I do eat a fairly clean diet six to seven meals a day including fiber intake of about 30-40g aside from taking in 250-280g of lean protein and about 30% of my diet comes from complex carbs.

Yada yada yada, and so on and so forth, with Dr. This Guy Published a Book, and Dr. That Guy Has a Book, and Dr. The Other Dood Has a Website, and Dr. These Gentlemen are Lovely.

And when the day is over, the guy with the healthy blood work wins.

My blood work is fine, and the only supplements I take are a daily chewable children's vitamin. I am not deficient in -anything-, and I don't have excess -anything- in my blood. The plumbing is fine, the pump is pumping perfectly, and all's well in AnonChick Land.

I'm not eating what you eat, so perhaps if you stopped eating the way you eat currently, you wouldn't need all those supplements? Perhaps, engorging your body with protein is causing your body to require more of this, that, and the other thing. Or maybe you do exercises more than most normal people, which means you are burning a whole lot more of everything, which means you need more vitamins and minerals than the average normal person will absorb in an average normal person's daily menu.

I dunno, but normal average healthy people who eat normal average healthy meals, don't need to supplement. You are either not normal, not healthy, or not average.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by nhdriver

Suzy I want to believe you and I do eat a fairly clean diet six to seven meals a day including fiber intake of about 30-40g aside from taking in 250-280g of lean protein and about 30% of my diet comes from complex carbs. But personally I don't think it's enough and I feel a day & night difference with proper supplementation and I always switch including new studies, right combination, and ultimately what I feel is optimal for my health. At the same time every person's body differs where I hope you agree and supplement accordingly; it's not just vitamins, macronutrient supplementation during workout and other products to support the body function.

Few professionals including well renowned expert in nutrition therapy like Dr. Esselstyn (who is very helpful in real life by the way), Dr. Lawrence Wilson, Dr. Gerson (you probably heard about him), etc. Even Dr. Esselstyn believes that in order for someone to not need to supplement, one would need to eat be eating mostly green leafy vegetables to get adequate amount of nutrients. Even all these experts as an example don't agree on everything. There was a clip I'll have to dig up sometime where Esselstyn and others doctors who are mostly on the same page as far as nutrition goes but they have subtle difference in their theory when it comes to what nutrients including minerals and foods that is good if not bad.

Dr. Wilson was a long time believer in eating whole foods including raw salad. As much as enzymes and some of the minerals are destroyed, he after 30 years, believe that it's better for humans to actually cook them (as much as I was a bit curious in his theory noted on his site Welcome to). Then you have someone like Dr. Gerson that started the Vitamin C megadosing for cancer treatment. We probably shouldn't get into that as it'll just get political with one side saying it doesn't work, another say it's barred due to pressure from pharmaceutical companies to avoid such cheap form of treatment by making it illegal to publish articles that are not scientifically proven.

On the topic of lab made & cofactor debate, and this may go against your belief but Vic Shayne Ph.D over at University of Natural Medicine don't believe that labs can create anything close to cofactors found in whole foods. He has a book called "Whole Food Nutrition - Missing Link in Vitamin Therapy".

"Since the above types of food ingredients are natural, they contain a host of nutrients that exist within a “complex.” A food complex includes not only vitamins and minerals, but also many cofactors (helper nutrients) that are found in nature’s foods as a result of the evolutionary process. Cofactors and food complexes therefore cannot be made in a laboratory nor can they be duplicated by scientists. Many nutritional doctors and researchers conclude that cofactors are often more valuable than vitamins and minerals, and that food cannot be duplicated due to its complexity, dynamism and energy. Cofactors within nature’s foods (which are found also in whole food supplements) include, but are not limited to: vitamins, minerals, terpenes, trace mineral activators, enzymes, co-enzymes, chlorophyll, lipids, essential fatty acids, fiber, carotenoids, antioxidants, flavonoids, pigments, amino acids, whole proteins and more."

James Duke another Ph.D who worked for National Cancer Institute said:

For years I worked with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborative cancer screening and collaborated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) AIDS and Designer Food programs. I watched their scientists and contractors futilely follow their directed fractionations in search of the single super silver bullet compound in the herbal potpourri. It became clear that there were almost always, not one, but many closely related chemicals in a species, each of which contributed in slightly different ways to the activity of the whole herb. More often than not, these chemicals and their activities were synergistic, the whole herb being more active proportionately, than even the strongest single isolated ingredient…t adds up to the whole plant being better than the sum of its known parts…Silver bullets, single solitary chemicals, are still even more likely to upset our genetic phytochemical ratios, and that’s why they are more liable to have serious side effects than natural remedies our genes have experienced over the millennia.

There are other sources and articles but at least for my belief Suzy, is that it's just better to supplement with whole foods; even if you say Megafood or even other better brands may not all have truly 100% potent minerals that's going to be absorbed by the body. To me it just seems safer as far as something Centrum or other supplements that are readily available on the market that are not food derived. Even whole foods supplements I understand aren't going to be absorbed by the body completely either. It's like the organic/natural/non-organic debate. We try to eat and know where the food source is from, not just limited to grocery stores but local farms.

At least we can agree on proper dieting with whole foods and not just supplementation. I'll look into it more, like I said, I'm open to any ideas, theories and researches that aren't often found through the net or even books. I've talked to manufacturers, other nutritionists, doctors (including homeopathic and naturalpathic) and people that are familiar with the matter and every single one of them seem to have different ideas when it comes to supplementation.

It appears to me that you are over thinking the concept of nutrition and making it a whole lot more difficult than it needs to be.

The concept that "food derived" vitamins and minerals are better than those that are synthesized just does not stand up to biochemical facts.

Yes, it is better to get vitamins and minerals from food, but that means real food: fruits, vegetables, and (for most of us) meats. You can do that. Vegans are special cases. People with certain medical problems are special cases. People who cut back on intake to lose weight are special cases. For the average person, just eating a variety of foods will work fine.

If you choose to use a supplement, then just choose a USP verified one. The Megafood product is a farce. The vitamins and minerals in it are not really derived from "whole foods" at all. Yeast is used to produce the majority of them, and the yeast has to be manipulated in such a fashion that the resulting product is just as "synthetic" as what you would find in vitamins that do not claim to be from "whole foods." So my criticism is not that the vitamins and minerals in Megafood products are not absorbed (though I see no claim that they have been USP tested), but that they are misleading people by claiming that yeast is a "whole food" or "superfood" and that vitamins from yeast are somehow superior.

Keep in mind that we assume that when you take a vitamin and mineral supplement that it is just that, not a substitute for dietary sources of those vitamins and minerals. Just take your "synthetic" supplement with a meal.

By the way, Vic Shayne's PhD appears to be from an online diploma mill. Their site has a lot of info about tuition, but I cannot find any info about a brick and mortar campus. I suspect as long as you pay the tuition, you get your "degree".

[nhdriver]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

I'm not eating what you eat, so perhaps if you stopped eating the way you eat currently, you wouldn't need all those supplements? Perhaps, engorging your body with protein is causing your body to require more of this, that, and the other thing. Or maybe you do exercises more than most normal people, which means you are burning a whole lot more of everything, which means you need more vitamins and minerals than the average normal person will absorb in an average normal person's daily menu.

I dunno, but normal average healthy people who eat normal average healthy meals, don't need to supplement. You are either not normal, not healthy, or not average.

I only eat about 3,000 cal (split into seven meals) for my current intake for my 5'10" frame. Reducing below that will only slow my metabolism if not cut into lean mass. Why not ask instead of assuming who I am?

I'm probably not average but not huge like a bodybuilder either; my blood work is fine, so is my weight, blood pressure, triglyceride level, etc. Then again people I know in the same area that are into lifting and biking all seem to have similar macronutrient intake. Ratio might be different but it's all science.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

It appears to me that you are over thinking the concept of nutrition and making it a whole lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Simply put I just do what I feel is better for my health and adjust accordingly. I'm not stuck on one particular idea or so rigid that I cannot change. I always do. Am I paying more money for most supplements? Probably but my health track record show it's working; not for my own health but I'm not going to cut corners to eat cheaply thinking it'll be just fine. Same thing with whole foods, I go for quality, not something with less nutritional content.

So should I not over think for the sake of my health and the quality of my life? Including my children? I'm not going to be the typical American barely living in their late 60's pumping full of medication. Goodness, I do not want that kind of worry put on my children because I can't take care of myself. My mother who is 64 does Zumba four times a week and don't take any medication and still worries for my health all the time.

I'm very happy with my health and I'm only suggesting others to take a healthy approach because you know what, if people don't agree that's fine, but there are many people I've talked to who took the healthier approach including supplementation, macronutrient intake adjustment, cutting certain types of food and relying on natural remedies that they are much better. It's only a suggestion really. If it works, great. If you don't want to spend the money or don't think it's not worth the extra supplementation then that's your choice and health.

[villageidiot1]

nhdriver,

As someone who has experimented with supplements for over 40 years and done considerable reading on the subject, I will tell you that Suzy has given you excellent advice. I especially appreciated her discussion of B-12, which was one of my most recent experiments. I experimented with other forms of B-12 but did not see any difference. I'm still taking packets that have dibencozide, cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin.

Diet is important and it is important to get all the necessary vitamins and minerals, and the necessary amounts of protein, fats and carbohydrates. Beyond that, you are likely to get extremely minimal returns. I now take a WalMart multivitamin, extra B-12 and vitamin D, fish oil and a few other random supplements for various reasons. Honestly, I have never noticed a difference when I start or stop taking something.

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

The concept that "food derived" vitamins and minerals are better than those that are synthesized just does not stand up to biochemical facts.

If anyone has had experience with "testing" in laboratories, you will know that they are testing FOR something. i.e. they have some preconceived notion about what, exactly they are looking for. Naturally, when synthetic vitamins are compared to natural ones, they are comparing them tit for tat. They are not looking for anything else in the natural vitamin.

Without reaching too far into the metaphysical, it is my opinion that natural vitamins have many qualities and components present that modern science is not looking for when they are doing the testing. Perhaps there are even things there that they don't know HOW to look for. There are even schools of thought who feel that vibration and resonance have something to do with how our bodies utilize nutrients. After all, physics teaches us that EVERYTHING in the world, when broken down to an atomic level is simply atoms, neutrons and electrons vibrating in frequency. Synthetic oil does not have the same components as oil, even thought it looks, feels and does the same job (often better), than the real thing. It is foolish to believe that synthetic vitamins are the same as real ones even though they look, feel and do (essentially) the same "job" in the body. They may provide the same vitamins but they most certainly do not provide the other things which contribute to the health and wellness of the person taking them.

20yrsinBranson

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

nhdriver,

As someone who has experimented with supplements for over 40 years and done considerable reading on the subject, I will tell you that Suzy has given you excellent advice. I especially appreciated her discussion of B-12, which was one of my most recent experiments. I experimented with other forms of B-12 but did not see any difference. I'm still taking packets that have dibencozide, cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin.

Diet is important and it is important to get all the necessary vitamins and minerals, and the necessary amounts of protein, fats and carbohydrates. Beyond that, you are likely to get extremely minimal returns. I now take a WalMart multivitamin, extra B-12 and vitamin D, fish oil and a few other random supplements for various reasons. Honestly, I have never noticed a difference when I start or stop taking something.

Thanks for the compliment!

I really would not expect someone who is not deficient in a particular vitamin or mineral to feel different when taking extra vitamins and minerals, so your experience is likely to be typical.

Once a deficiency is confirmed, the "supplement" is no longer just a supplement, it is a therapeutic treatment, at least until the reason for the deficiency is determined and corrected. For example, a woman with heavy monthly blood loss can gradually become severly anemic and experience symptoms such as fatigue. Stopping the bleeding and giving a therapeutic dose of iron allows the anemia to be corrected and the fatigue improves. Someone with fatigue who is not iron deficient could take therapeutic doses of iron and not feel better, barring a placebo efffect. Since too much iron can be hazardous, no one should take therapeutic amounts of it who is not truly deficient. If you are not deficient in a vitamin, taking more will not make you feel better, and so far attempts to show that taking vitamin supplements makes people healthier or makes them live longer have been unsuccessful.

As I noted in a previous post, when you add up the cost of various supplements, most people will do better just applying that money to their food budget.