Vitamin absorption

[Oceanking]

I know its not as exciting of a topic like psychoactive drugs can be, but I've wondered for a few years now about the topic of vitamin bioavailability. I've heard, and read that taking vitamins in pill form (such as a daily vitamin like Centrum) renders the vitamins and minerals virtually worthless. To be a little more detailed, I've heard that only about 10% of the vitamins actually become effective due to its low bioavailability. This has been said it is because vitamins and minerals are meant to be taken through the diet and not as a lump sum of vitamins and minerals in a pill. Does anyone find this credible?

 

[The Monkey Mantra]

The people who frequent Healthy Living might have a bit more to say on this, but they can be kinda kooky and subjective in their explanations.

 

[acetylcholine]

vitamins and minerals are meant to be taken through the diet and not as a lump sum of vitamins and minerals in a pill.

I believe there is a little evidence about better bioavailability of nutrients through food, but the reasons for this aren't quite clear. I don't think it's because vitamins are in pill form.

Mostly, this kind of talk sounds like back-to-nature propaganda to me or a sales pitch for some kind of enriched powder. I think I absorb my vitamins just fine.

 

[Tsukasa]

Here's reviews for the two multivitamins/minerals i'm taking.
Super HyVite extra strength - I got these as a birthday present, and friend said he found them on the side of a curb. So someone must have thrown these out for a reason. But I found this is the best one i've had yet. It's time released, and has really high doses of all the B-vitamins. Bulbous green pills, but not hard to swallow, though might upset your stomach a little first time taking it. Has most of the essential vitamins, but lacks with the minerals. Has some extra stuff too like PABA, glutamic acid, rutin, hesperidin complex, betaine, citrus flavanoid complex...
How do I know it works? My pee is bright yellow only when i take it, and I got an increase in my well-being which could not be attributed to anything else.

Nature made multi complete. My second multivitamin which has lower doses of vitamins, I occasionally take if i'm taking amino acids or mucuna pruriens that day (for lack of decarboxylase inhibitor). It's more complete and balanced than the last one, but is instant release. My pee is the same as before I took it and it looks awfully small to hold all of those vitamins and minerals. So yea.. it's really cheap, but I wouldn't reccomend it. Probably has low bioavailability or not up to standard.

My father takes centrum, and i've heard many good reviews of it, so it should be good.

I also take some other vitamin and mineral supplements to "supplement" my Hyvite supplement, because it's lacking in some places. NSI Advan-C. It contains a hefty dose of vitamin C, citrus flavanoids, quercetin, and calcium. I get gas and diarhea if I take too much, and also found it relieves both neuropathic and inflammatory pain, and greatly hastens recovery from illnesses like colds.

My melatonin and taurine have high doses of vitamin B6 combined with them, but I don't think I need much more of that than from my multivit.

Nature made calcium w/vitamin D- Honestly don't know if this works, I'd rather get calcium and vitamin D from skim milk.

Nature made magnesium - I take this when I take Hyvite which only has 1% daily value of magnesium (4mg's). This supplement supplies 63%, and the rest I get from my diet. This supplement DEFINATELY works. But it's difficult to swallow for some reason, and quickly starts dissolving when it's still in your mouth. I know it works because I get a muscle relaxation, with a inhibitory dopaminergic effect, and a general increase in mood.

 

[psychedelic food]

Its true, synthetic vitamans are a 23 billion per year industry.

http://www.helium.com/items/105747-...c-vitamins-and-the-benefits-of-whole-vitamins

http://relivwatchdog.blogspot.com/2008/02/reliv-is-not-natural-dangers-of.html

http://wholefoodandmore.wordpress.c...s-and-the-benefits-of-whole-food-supplements/

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cach...ers&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://biopsychiatry.com/misc/vitamin-supplements.html

 

[Sturnam]

^ From the sources...

From the first source:

In order for the body to absorb and use a vitamin, all of the parts of the complex must be present. That means that in order to use the fractionated form of the vitamin, the body must first supply the other parts of the whole food complex. If ascorbic acid alone is ingested, the body must complete the complex by robbing its own collagen tissue of the elements that are missing in the "vitamin C" you supplied.

Um....really? I would like to see the science behind this. No reference is given though, so I guess I can't find this out myself. They also seem to consider the bioflavinoids in fruits with vitamin C as "part" of the vitamin C. Which i think is ridiculous. The bioflavinoids are very distinct molecules that are probably responsible for the health benefits of eating lots of fruits and veggies.

I would also really really like to see their reference for this claim:

One of the latest studies was on Vitamin C as synthetic ascorbic acid. It was found to thicken the walls of the arteries.

And the biggest LOL of the first article:

Whole food vitamins do not rob precious nutrients from the body, but supply the individual cells with the nutrients they need to flourish. For greatest gains in terms of health, take only whole food vitamins.

They're not advocating NO vitamins, they're advocating WHOLE FOOD VITAMINS!!! This sounds like just another marketing trick by the people making these whole food vitamins as an effort to distinguish themselves.

From the second article:

synthetic vitamin producers and sellers all claim that synthetic vitamins have the same molecular structure as the Natural whole plant, and are therefore the same or at least have the same effect. They never tell you that the polarity of the synthetic is opposite to the Natural and has the opposite effect. Synthetic vitamins always refract light, the opposite of the Natural Organic vitamin complexes.

Synthetic vitamins ALWAYS reflect light opposite? I doubt that. Reference please!
And again, they are simply advocating a different, "better" vitamin source. Shameless shameless advertising.
Lastly, this is just some guy's blog. A guy who admitted left those 'terrible synthetics' for the 'natural whole food vitamins'. Not reputable at all.

Third article:
more about whole food vitamins, more about 'synthetic' vitamin C making artery walls thicker, still no scientific journals backing up either of their claims. Need I say it again? Another marketing claim to get people to think that "whole natural food vitamins" are superior in absorption or effects, both of which I doubt are actually true.

Fourth:
The study where he quoted health harms from 1000mg of vitamin C a day, well I looked at that one (I believe), and this is what it ACTUALLY says,

Over 196 713 total person-years (average follow-up: 9.5 y), 448 incident strokes occurred. In a Cox proportional hazards model, persons in the top quartiles of baseline plasma vitamin C concentrations had a 42% lower risk (relative risk: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.78) than did those in the bottom quartile, independently of age, sex, smoking, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, physical activity, prevalent diabetes and myocardial infarction, social class, alcohol consumption, and any supplement use. Similar results were obtained after exclusion of persons with illnesses, users of ascorbic acid–containing supplements, and persons with a history of early strokes during the initial 2 y of follow-up.

Hmmm, that's weird. The study he used against vitamin C actually shows proof that people with higher vitamin C, (even from those evil 'synthetic' sources) had a lower risk of stroke.

He says in conclusion:

Beware of natural. The use of the word natural has reached the level of abuse.
Basically, the term has little meaning. A bottle of 100% synthetic vitamin C, for example, may be labeled “natural.” With no adequate legal definition, any company can use the word “natural” almost as it pleases. Ignore the word “natural”

Yes!!! I agree!!! Basically, the moral is that there is no difference between "synthetic" vitamins and "naturally extracted" vitamins.

Last article:
I totally agree with what they're saying. They're basically saying that excessively high dose vitamins and minerals have generally been found to RAISE rates of cancer/death. No shit it's a bad idea to take 5,000% of the DV every day. Although they do point out that some vitamins do have potential to lower cancer risks at higher doses, but not excessively high doses.

And I heartily agree with this statement,

Scientists suspect that the benefits of a healthful diet come from eating the whole fruit or vegetable, not just the individual vitamins found in it. There may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits, Dr. Gann said. Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out one or two chemicals given in isolation?

This is where the moral of the story is. Vitamins won't substitute for the real health benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables.

My real problem with most of the sources you quoted is an obvious conflict on interest. They decry the 'synthetic' but praise the "whole food organic all natural" vitamins. And I call their bullshit.

 

[The Monkey Mantra]

^^^ qft.

 

[Oceanking]

Here's reviews for the two multivitamins/minerals i'm taking.
Super HyVite extra strength - I got these as a birthday present, and friend said he found them on the side of a curb. So someone must have thrown these out for a reason. But I found this is the best one i've had yet. It's time released, and has really high doses of all the B-vitamins. Bulbous green pills, but not hard to swallow, though might upset your stomach a little first time taking it. Has most of the essential vitamins, but lacks with the minerals. Has some extra stuff too like PABA, glutamic acid, rutin, hesperidin complex, betaine, citrus flavanoid complex...
How do I know it works? My pee is bright yellow only when i take it, and I got an increase in my well-being which could not be attributed to anything else.

Nature made multi complete. My second multivitamin which has lower doses of vitamins, I occasionally take if i'm taking amino acids or mucuna pruriens that day (for lack of decarboxylase inhibitor). It's more complete and balanced than the last one, but is instant release. My pee is the same as before I took it and it looks awfully small to hold all of those vitamins and minerals. So yea.. it's really cheap, but I wouldn't reccomend it. Probably has low bioavailability or not up to standard.

My father takes centrum, and i've heard many good reviews of it, so it should be good.

I also take some other vitamin and mineral supplements to "supplement" my Hyvite supplement, because it's lacking in some places. NSI Advan-C. It contains a hefty dose of vitamin C, citrus flavanoids, quercetin, and calcium. I get gas and diarhea if I take too much, and also found it relieves both neuropathic and inflammatory pain, and greatly hastens recovery from illnesses like colds.

My melatonin and taurine have high doses of vitamin B6 combined with them, but I don't think I need much more of that than from my multivit.

Nature made calcium w/vitamin D- Honestly don't know if this works, I'd rather get calcium and vitamin D from skim milk.

Nature made magnesium - I take this when I take Hyvite which only has 1% daily value of magnesium (4mg's). This supplement supplies 63%, and the rest I get from my diet. This supplement DEFINATELY works. But it's difficult to swallow for some reason, and quickly starts dissolving when it's still in your mouth. I know it works because I get a muscle relaxation, with a inhibitory dopaminergic effect, and a general increase in mood.

Although a good synopsis of the vitamins you take, its all subjective based on your experience. I'm looking for scientifically validated studies. Thanks for your opinions, though.

 

[psychedelic food]

When you really think about it based on millions of years of human evolution without vitamans, and even the thought of synthetic vitamans and how they interact with the body it makes alot more sense that they are right than synthetic vitamans are good for you. So even though there are some minor errors in their articles im going to side with them because not only does it make more sense they also present some good evidence. You cant expect every article to have links from studies posted after everything they say. Go look it up for yourself if your that skeptical. I did not see one product or link to a product listed on their site. When they say "whole food vitamins" they mean eat food, not buy some special whole food vitamin. I knew someone would say something about making money thats why i said that synthetic vitamans are a 23 billion per year industry. That means alot of bogus studies and marketing. Just because there is a study saying that synthetic vitamans are good for you doesnt mean that its true. You have to see past all those bogus marketing studies and look at the facts yourself. Think about it more people now are taking synthetic vitamans and we are as unhealthy as ever even moreso in certain ways.

 

[Sturnam]

^ Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the fact that fresh fruits and vegetables are much superior than vitamin supplements, although I personally think that it's due to the flavinoids and other micronutrients rather than a 'different' form of the vitamin.

And if we honestly expect anything to be of any scientific value, then yes they do have to have studies posted for the bullshit they spout. Honestly, these "all nature" people sorta piss me off because they make up anything they want and claim it's true. That was my problem with your sources. They have lots and lots of claims, but absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

You have to see past all those bogus marketing studies and look at the facts yourself.

Out of curiosity, where do your 'facts' come from? God? Seal lions? Mine generally come from peer-reviewed journal articles. There are plenty of studies on vitamins that are not funded only by a vitamin company. There are plenty that are double-blind. There are plenty that are actually reputable. I suggest you look into those.

That being said, there are countless studies done on how people who eat at least 7 servings of fruits/vegetables are healthier, live longer, and have less diseases all across the board.

As for the criticism of the articles, I must have misinterpreted the "Whole Food Vitamins" as their own. It seems like a slightly weird wording especially since they capitalized it most of the time. Makes it seem like a brand name rather than just coming from fruits.


Lastly, I recommend reading Health Action Newsletter. They're a consumer advocacy group that wades through all the bullshit to bring the truth. They have no affiliation to any company or products, and they have run many articles on the effects of vitamins and minerals. You can get them for free from www.bnet.com

Again, in conclusion:
I agree with you that fruits and vegetables are much much superior than vitamin supplements. But I think that because there’s a reason (peer-reviewed studies, and lots of ‘em) to support this position.

To the OP:
Sorry to get soooo off topic. But I looked around for a while, and found nothing on the bioavailability of a multivitamin. I believe there are some for individual vitamins, but if you try and monitor the BA of 20 different compounds that have possible interactions with each other, it will be impossible. The only one that I know off the top of my head is that the BA of calcium citrate is superior to that of calcium carbonate, and you don’t have to take calcium citrate with food.

 

[psychedelic food]

Your right maybe synthetic vitamins can be good for you but not nearly as good as vitamins from food. For example there was a study which im not going to take the time to find right now which showed that both synthetic vitamin c and vitamin c from an orange slowed stomach cancer, but it was 1000 mg of synthetic vitiman c that had the same effect as 25 mg orange vitiman c. There have been many studies like this i will post some soon. When you think about a study like that it would make sense that the reason the vitamin c from the orange worked better is because it had more of the vitamin c complex other than just the ascorbic acid. The whole vitamin c complex is Ascorbic Acid, Rutin, Bioflavonoids, Factor K, Factor J, Factor P, Tyrosinase, and Ascorbinogen. Most of the other vitamins also need enzymes, co-enzymes, co-factors, and minerals. Vitamin D has twelve different active components. Vitamin E needs Selenium to produce anti-oxidative effects.


Obviously something like "vitamins are complexes not just simple chemicals" is something that you've never heard before so it would make sense that you dont believe it. I will look for some scientific evidence sometime soon. I think its one of those things that is fact but not really written down in order to make money. Like saying the reason people are deppresed is because they have a chemical imbalance and if you take this drug (which causes a chemical imbalance) you will be normal again. Just the fact that it would make no sense for the people writing those articles to lie and make up false evidence then write a whole article about it unless they are all just some crazy tweekers with alot of spare time and paranoid delusions. It would make perfect sense for the people on the other side to lie and make up false evidence because they are getting loads of money.

 

[psychedelic food]

These are just a few studies i found with a quick search.

REVIEW
Meta-Analysis: High-Dosage Vitamin E Supplementation May Increase All-Cause Mortality
right arrow Edgar R. Miller, III, MD, PhD; Roberto Pastor-Barriuso, PhD; Darshan Dalal, MD, MPH; Rudolph A. Riemersma, PhD, FRCPE; Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH; and Eliseo Guallar, MD, DrPH

4 January 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 1

Background: Experimental models and observational studies suggest that vitamin E supplementation may prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, several trials of high-dosage vitamin E supplementation showed non–statistically significant increases in total mortality.

Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of the dose–response relationship between vitamin E supplementation and total mortality by using data from randomized, controlled trials.

Patients: 135 967 participants in 19 clinical trials. Of these trials, 9 tested vitamin E alone and 10 tested vitamin E combined with other vitamins or minerals. The dosages of vitamin E ranged from 16.5 to 2000 IU/d (median, 400 IU/d).

Data Sources: PubMed search from 1966 through August 2004, complemented by a search of the Cochrane Clinical Trials Database and review of citations of published reviews and meta-analyses. No language restrictions were applied.

Data Extraction: 3 investigators independently abstracted study reports. The investigators of the original publications were contacted if required information was not available.

Data Synthesis: 9 of 11 trials testing high-dosage vitamin E (≥400 IU/d) showed increased risk (risk difference > 0) for all-cause mortality in comparisons of vitamin E versus control. The pooled all-cause mortality risk difference in high-dosage vitamin E trials was 39 per 10 000 persons (95% CI, 3 to 74 per 10 000 persons; P = 0.035). For low-dosage vitamin E trials, the risk difference was –16 per 10 000 persons (CI, –41 to 10 per 10 000 persons; P > 0.2). A dose–response analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between vitamin E dosage and all-cause mortality, with increased risk of dosages greater than 150 IU/d.

Limitations: High-dosage (≥400 IU/d) trials were often small and were performed in patients with chronic diseases. The generalizability of the findings to healthy adults is uncertain. Precise estimation of the threshold at which risk increases is difficult.

Conclusion: High-dosage (≥400 IU/d) vitamin E supplements may increase all-cause mortality and should be avoided.

The Effect of Vitamin E and Beta Carotene on the Incidence of Lung Cancer and Other Cancers in Male Smokers
Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group The Alpha-Tocopherol

ABSTRACT

Background Epidemiologic evidence indicates that diets high in carotenoid-rich fruits and vegetables, as well as high serum levels of vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) and beta carotene, are associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer.

Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled primary-prevention trial to determine whether daily supplementation with alpha-tocopherol, beta carotene, or both would reduce the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers. A total of 29,133 male smokers 50 to 69 years of age from southwestern Finland were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: alpha-tocopherol (50 mg per day) alone, beta carotene (20 mg per day) alone, both alpha-tocopherol and beta carotene, or placebo. Follow-up continued for five to eight years.

Results Among the 876 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed during the trial, no reduction in incidence was observed among the men who received alpha-tocopherol (change in incidence as compared with those who did not, -2 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -14 to 12 percent). Unexpectedly, we observed a higher incidence of lung cancer among the men who received beta carotene than among those who did not (change in incidence, 18 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 3 to 36 percent). We found no evidence of an interaction between alpha-tocopherol and beta carotene with respect to the incidence of lung cancer. Fewer cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed among those who received alpha-tocopherol than among those who did not. Beta carotene had little or no effect on the incidence of cancer other than lung cancer. Alpha-tocopherol had no apparent effect on total mortality, although more deaths from hemorrhagic stroke were observed among the men who received this supplement than among those who did not. Total mortality was 8 percent higher (95 percent confidence interval, 1 to 16 percent) among the participants who received beta carotene than among those who did not, primarily because there were more deaths from lung cancer and ischemic heart disease.

Conclusions We found no reduction in the incidence of lung cancer among male smokers after five to eight years of dietary supplementation with alpha-tocopherol or beta carotene. In fact, this trial raises the possibility that these supplements may actually have harmful as well as beneficial effects. .

You can look these up if you want




As early as 1940, a Scandinavian Veterinarian Journal detailed a vitamin experiment performed on Silver Foxes. The first group was fed synthetic Vitamin B while the second group was given all-natural sources of B complex. Three things happened to the first group:

1) They did not grow.

2) The quality of their fur deteriorated. And

3) they died prematurely.

(The Scandinavian Veterinarian Journal, 1940, Volume 30.)

Meanwhile, everything was normal with the second group.


Another report involved synthetic Vitamin D and human pregnancy. Vitamin D was given to 500 pregnant women. Some were given synthetic Vitamin D, others were given natural Vitamin D. All the women given synthetic Vitamin D developed diseased kidneys. None of the women given natural Vitamin D had any problems with their kidneys.( Dr. Weston A. Prince, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.)


Synthetic Vitamin B Causes Sterility in Pigs

Another report involved pigs and Vitamin B. This study was done clear back in 1939. The first group of pigs was fed synthetic Vitamin B. The second group was fed natural Vitamin B. All of the offspring from the pigs fed synthetic Vitamin B were sterile. None of the offspring from the parents fed natural Vitamin B were sterile. (Study by Dr. Barnett Sure, Jol. Nurt., Aug., 1939)


Two Independent Studies Conclude: Taking Synthetic Vitamins is Worse Than Starvation

Two independent studies on synthetic vitamins both reached the conclusion that taking synthetic vitamins is worse than starvation. One was a recent Finnish study published in the New England Journal of Medicine; the other was the result of experiments performed at the University of California in Berkley.


Birth defects increased for women on synthetic supplements (reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1995) 22,000 pregnant women were given synthetic Vitamin A. The study was halted because birth defects increased 400%.

Men get thickened arteries on synthetic supplements (reported in Reuters Health, March, 2000). Men who took 500 mg of synthetic Vitamin C daily over 18 months showed signs of thickening of the arteries.

 

[The Monkey Mantra]

I call BULLSHIT on the Vitamin C thing:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/s-s00/arteries.html

Even so, I do think the bioflavonoids are great for ya. I'm about to go eat a grapefruit.

As far as the B-vitamin thing, do a google scholar search and get some REAL studies. For every study you've posted done by hippie dippie wackos in 1939 there's like five that show the opposite. That's not to say that excessive vitamin use isn't a problem, but I don't understand how you can say that if the dosage was the same that "synthetic" vitamin receivers had any difference. I mean, Christ on a stick - haven't we learned that the "natural" and "synthetic" forms, unless there's an isomeric difference a la Vitamin E (which is STILL good for you in d,l form up to a certain point) is mostly bullshit? Oh, and the Vitamin A from natural sources thing is just the difference between beta-carotene, which your body converts as it needs it, and the Retinol form which is, of course, known to be toxic. They aren't the same chemical, so they can't be compared!

 

[psychedelic food]

I call BULLSHIT on the Vitamin C thing:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/s-s00/arteries.html

Even so, I do think the bioflavonoids are great for ya. I'm about to go eat a grapefruit.

As far as the B-vitamin thing, do a google scholar search and get some REAL studies. For every study you've posted done by hippie dippie wackos in 1939 there's like five that show the opposite. That's not to say that excessive vitamin use isn't a problem, but I don't understand how you can say that if the dosage was the same that "synthetic" vitamin receivers had any difference. I mean, Christ on a stick - haven't we learned that the "natural" and "synthetic" forms, unless there's an isomeric difference a la Vitamin E (which is STILL good for you in d,l form up to a certain point) is mostly bullshit? Oh, and the Vitamin A from natural sources thing is just the difference between beta-carotene, which your body converts as it needs it, and the Retinol form which is, of course, known to be toxic. They aren't the same chemical, so they can't be compared!

Ya there are alot of studies saying the opposite on the vitiman c thing. Probably bullshit. Like i said i just did a quick google search to find those studies. Anyway believe what you want dude if you want to continue taking synthetic vitamins then go ahead. I dont want to get into some big internet argument so we can feel better about ourselves.

 

[The Monkey Mantra]

Ya there are alot of studies saying the opposite on the vitiman c thing. Probably bullshit. Like i said i just did a quick google search to find those studies. Anyway believe what you want dude if you want to continue taking synthetic vitamins then go ahead. I dont want to get into some big internet argument so we can feel better about ourselves.

Fighting expensive (whole-food vitamins, anyone?) ignorance is harm-reduction, right? It's not about me telling you your mom's a ho-bag or something. That's a "big internet argument". It's you asking a question about whether or not whole food vitamins absorbed better/were better for you and then fighting back the tremendous amount of information showing those outdated and poorly controlled studies were a bunch of baloney.

To reiterate: You ask a question in ADD, we respond with some empirically - and I mean QUALITY empirically - derived statements and then you go on and say "Believe what you want I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing I don't wanna have some big internet argument"?! Why the heck did you ask us in the FIRST PLACE? Dude, if you don't want someone providing you with real research, why do you ask about it here just to tell us you don't care what the studies say?

Anyway, taking vitamins is probably largely unnecessary anyway, and for a lot of vitamins, megadoses are BAD, but shelling out extra for "whole food" vitamins like Vitamin C extracted from Acerola or whatever? That's unnecessary AND stupid.


!Monkey!

 

[psychedelic food]

Fighting expensive (whole-food vitamins, anyone?) ignorance is harm-reduction, right? It's not about me telling you your mom's a ho-bag or something. That's a "big internet argument". It's you asking a question about whether or not whole food vitamins absorbed better/were better for you and then fighting back the tremendous amount of information showing those outdated and poorly controlled studies were a bunch of baloney.

To reiterate: You ask a question in ADD, we respond with some empirically - and I mean QUALITY empirically - derived statements and then you go on and say "Believe what you want I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing I don't wanna have some big internet argument"?! Why the heck did you ask us in the FIRST PLACE? Dude, if you don't want someone providing you with real research, why do you ask about it here just to tell us you don't care what the studies say?

Anyway, taking vitamins is probably largely unnecessary anyway, and for a lot of vitamins, megadoses are BAD, but shelling out extra for "whole food" vitamins like Vitamin C extracted from Acerola or whatever? That's unnecessary AND stupid.


!Monkey!

It just doesnt matter that much to me that you take vitamins the way i do. I haven't found any peer reviewed studies although im sure there are plenty out there (just havent looked). The thing is im not going to look for those studies because its kind of a waste of time. If i dont find those studies you guys will throw that in my face and if i do find them you will pick them apart. I think i provided enough for a person browsing this thread to be interested. Thats the reason that i posted those links in the first place. I just wanted to post those links but the way you guys picked them apart was kind of ridiculous so i posted more. Also "whole food vitimans" are vitamins from food. Im not saying buy some special whole food vitamin im saying eat food and get vitamins that way.

 

[pofacedhoe]

B vitamin complex is needing to be taken with fatty food as the B vitamins are soluble in fat

that is literally to do with absorbtion and there is science behind it and i know from experience that , asi have a specific deficiency of vitamin b6 from pyroluria as i piss too much out, i know fatty macadamia nuts are a great source of b6

fats are important

 

[The Monkey Mantra]

It just doesnt matter that much to me that you take vitamins the way i do. I haven't found any peer reviewed studies although im sure there are plenty out there (just havent looked). The thing is im not going to look for those studies because its kind of a waste of time. If i dont find those studies you guys will throw that in my face and if i do find them you will pick them apart. I think i provided enough for a person browsing this thread to be interested. Thats the reason that i posted those links in the first place. I just wanted to post those links but the way you guys picked them apart was kind of ridiculous so i posted more. Also "whole food vitimans" are vitamins from food. Im not saying buy some special whole food vitamin im saying eat food and get vitamins that way.

I wasn't trying to be a dick to you, and you really shouldn't take it super personally. If you HAVE taken it personally, then perhaps my language was too severe (which it can be) and I'll try to be gentler.

My point is that almost everything in ADD is based on articles and reviews. We post studies - solid, peer-reviewed stuff - to back up our points if we're not asking a question. Then those studies get investigated and we post replies with other studies. In that way, we can bounce a tennis ball back and forth until we can close in on some sort of theory as to what's really going on and what the studies point to. Part of that process is inevitably going to be evaluating studies and links for legitimate conclusions and sound methodology. We'll be evaluating them for confounding variables, what journal they were published in ('cause not all journals are created equal - some are WAY less picky about their review process), and whether they're *repeatable*. As in, are other people able to follow the methods to the T and get the same results.

I don't mean to say GTFO; rather that you kinda have to expect critique here. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Oceanking]

Thanks for the great thread! I haven't had time to peruse the links and articles yet, but will do so when I have the time.

 

[Oceanking]

To the OP:
Sorry to get soooo off topic. But I looked around for a while, and found nothing on the bioavailability of a multivitamin. I believe there are some for individual vitamins, but if you try and monitor the BA of 20 different compounds that have possible interactions with each other, it will be impossible. The only one that I know off the top of my head is that the BA of calcium citrate is superior to that of calcium carbonate, and you don’t have to take calcium citrate with food.

You make a good point about the near impossiblity of monitoring the BA of 20 different compounds. Thanks for trying to keep on point. Although even branched topics are of interest.