T Nation

Is It All Just A Racket . . . ?

The vitamin supplement thing, that is . . .

AHAHAHAHAHA!

The situation is so complex that a crappy little article like that cannot hope to do it justice.

Personally, I would prefer to base my thoughts on the matter on peer reviewed research with actual results.

So would I, I suppose, but I’ve still always wondered . . .

Please tell me you are smarter than this.
Do you actually believe this bull crap?
This is a load of crap.
This is another prime example of Lobbyism.
But ,remember,synthetic vitamins are not as effective as whole food vitamins.
So,maybe some synthetic vitamins may not be as effective as other forms of vitamins,but in no way is any vitamin “harmful”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the drug companies had something to do with that.
These lobbyists will do whatever they can to knock natural methods/supplements because their drugs are doing more harm than more good.

Guys, relax! I wasn’t saying I believe it by any means. I was just throwing it out there . . . .

Chill.

Jeezus.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Guys, relax! I wasn’t saying I believe it by any means. I was just throwing it out there . . . .

Chill.

Jeezus.
[/quote]

We were born with brains you know.
Some things can help us distinguish healthy foods from unhealthy foods.
This thing is called common sense.
I hope a day doesn’t come were people think eating fruits and vegetables is unhealthy for you.
God,I wouldn’t even want to live in a world like that.
People these days need to grow some balls and quit being brainwashed by these companies and the media.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
We were born with brains you know.
[/quote]

You insensitive clod!

This comes from the daily mail here in the UK. This is the paper that has a weekly health section that is usually aimed at middle class women who believe anything they read. As someone posted, this is just more lobbyism.

Let’s face it, if you’re genuinely into bodybuilding, fitness or health, you’re most likely to be above taking any notice of the crap ‘they’ put in newspapers. Just the other day there was a sub-headline in a newspaper that said consuming fish oils and combining it with exercise could help burn excess body fat. Really, wow that’s cutting edge! Apparently ‘more research is needed’ to confirm this! Most mainstream information is ballshit. My uncle was a doctor for 25 years, until he had to retire due to cardiovascular problems, and like 90% of doctors, his idea of good nutrition is more ballshit. It amazes me that newspapers concentrate on this type of article, when they could be talking about real problems such as Trans fats, refined oils, refined carbs etc etc. I do echo what a previous post said about whole food supplements being superior to synthetic vitamins, but the tone of this article was to totally scaremonger people. I know of a true story regarding someone connected to a prominent UK sports nutrition company, who attended a government convention regarding nutritional guidelines for the general population. The chief dietician was an obese woman who promoted the values of a high carb, low fat diet. I think this shows that self-education is the best advice on offer. Thanks for highlighting yet another piece of dubious reporting.

That is just another example of CODEX and the FDA trying to help out the pharmacuetical companies.

Look at the way ephedra was banned by the FDA for a perfect example of how it will be done in the future.

i.e. No testing and no proof…just banning good supplements because people are morons.

analyze your diet and you will see that you are deficient in certain areas. i know i am, that is why i use vitamins, minerals, and other supplements. to say that vitamins are bad is ludacris because they are found in the foods we eat and your body produces them sometimes. we all know that there are limits to everything. use don’t abuse.

also the stress from physical activity puts strains on the body and causes disruptions in the balance that is why we need more then non training people. laters pk

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
But ,remember,synthetic vitamins are not as effective as whole food vitamins.[/quote]

I thought this had been debunked long ago. A vitamin is a vitamin, regardless of where it came from.

[quote]Miserere wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
But ,remember,synthetic vitamins are not as effective as whole food vitamins.

I thought this had been debunked long ago. A vitamin is a vitamin, regardless of where it came from.[/quote]

Yea, I don’t understand that either. Or “organic” vitamins. It’s a damn molecule.

[quote]Miserere wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
But ,remember,synthetic vitamins are not as effective as whole food vitamins.

I thought this had been debunked long ago. A vitamin is a vitamin, regardless of where it came from.[/quote]

No,a vitamin isn’t a vitamin.
If a part to your car breaks,replace it with plastic parts and see how far it will get you.
I’ve been taking a coral calcium plus supplement that is rich in all the natural vitamins.
Since I’ve been taking it I’ve noticed a huge difference than the synthetic ones I’ve taken years before.

The advertising boys blast out the “slogan” that ?THE BODY DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE" between a synthetic vitamin and the real thing, I sometimes wonder why these guys don?t get sued for practicing medicine without a brain!!

Common sense should tell you that when you take a “fraction” of something it is not the same as the whole substance. When the “fraction” by itself is obtained from an altogether different source than the original substance simply because “its the same thing” (translates into ?cheaper to produce) I must admit that it does take a mighty good sales pitch to get the gullible people to buy it. But don?t try to tell me “the body” can?t tell the difference.

A prime example to consider is Ascorbic Acid. Let’s be real clear on this. Ascorbic Acid is not Vitamin C. Ascorbic Acid is Ascorbic Acid which is a fraction of the biologically utilizable Vitamin C complex!!

There is a NATURAL ascorbic acid, which is derived from citrus fruits, ascerola cherries, rose hips, green peppers and other fruits and vegetables. However, most of the ascorbic acid (so-called Vitamin C) on the market is synthetically manufactured from corn sugar (glucose). Even though it is synthetically made, it is called natural and organic because corn sugar comes from corn (unless synthetic)?corn is found in nature, and of course anything containing carbon is “organic”.

A fraction of a vitamin, whether natural or synthetic, is at best a drug?not a vitamin?and can only have a drug effect in the body?not a physiological or curative benefit. There are an abundance of studies demonstrating that megadoses of ascorbic acid can and do create serious problems in the body. Reports include: Collagen disease, rebound scurvy (which is a vitamin C deficiency disease), impaired mineral metabolism, imbalance of other vitamins like vitamin A and B, formation of some types of kidney stones, and diabetes mellitus.

The same principals apply to all synthetic forms of so called vitamins. It?s not as if this information is new. If you look at studies back around World War 11, you will find a great deal of controversy surrounding synthetics. This was of course before the high powered dollars were spent to “enrich” our food supply to make us all healthier.

For example, in 1940 a Scandanavian Veterinarian Journal detailed an experiment involving Silver Foxes. One group was fed all of the known synthetic B vitamins as part of their rations. The second group were given natural sources of B complex. Results? The first group did not grow; the quality of their fur deteriorated; and they died prematurely!!! All was normal with the second group.

The sad truth about synthetic “vitamins” is that they can be dangerous!! For example, there is a report on the test effects of vitamin D in 500 human pregnancy cases. All the women given synthetic D developed calcified and diseased kidneys while women given natural vitamin D had no observable changes in the kidneys.

Back in 1939 there was a report on an animal study done with vitamin B. A number of pigs were fed twice the “daily requirement” of synthetic B and a similar number of pigs were fed the same amount of natural B. Results? ALL of the first generation of off-spring from the pigs fed the synthetic vitamin were STERILE. None of the first generation off-spring were sterile from the parents fed natural vitamin B.

So what?s this all got to do with you? Consider this little gem of a “coincidence”.

White bleached wheat flour has more than thirty known nutrients removed with four synthetically added back in. This “enrichment” of flour began in 1939 when by law, the FDA required the addition of a few synthetic factors. These are: thiamin (B1 ), riboflavin (B2 ), nicotinic acid (B3 ), and iron.

In 1929 the average sperm count for a young American male was 100 million sperm cells per milliliter of semen. By 1973 the count had dropped to 60 million/ml. In 1980 the average count was down to 20 million/ml. Today ??

But synthetic vitamin B added to our “daily bread” couldn?t be to blame could it? Of course we all know that the good old pet food manufacturers don?t use synthetic vitamins, do they? Nobody has fertility problems with their male dogs, do they?

In the last decade, numerous, large scale, studies have confirmed that synthetic vitamins can and do present a clear cut danger, whereas the same vitamins from foods show no evidence of harm. For example, in late 1995 a direct link between synthetic vitamin A and birth defects was reported as the results of a four year study involving 22,748 pregnant women. The results of this study show a 240% increase in birth defects when the women took 10,000iu per day and a staggering 400% increase in risk from taking 20,000iu per day of synthetic vitamin A. The researchers were very careful to point out that the risk from actual foods containing natural vitamin A presented NO BIRTH DEFECTS!! No amount of naturally occurring vitamin A, even liver which contains as much as 30,000iu in three ounces, showed any evidence of contributing to birth defects.

[quote]bikemike wrote:
Miserere wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
But ,remember,synthetic vitamins are not as effective as whole food vitamins.

I thought this had been debunked long ago. A vitamin is a vitamin, regardless of where it came from.

Yea, I don’t understand that either. Or “organic” vitamins. It’s a damn molecule.[/quote]

Some supplement companies can say they’re organic because of carbon.
However,organic whole food supplements are usually vitamins that come from organic fruits,vegetables,etc.

I’m surprised that Biotest hasn’t come up with a super vitamin complex. When you think about it, there is no “competition”, there is no consensus among T-members about the best multivitamin.

ascorbic acid is chiral, so it is possible that synthetic versions could be racemates should the original substrates also be achiral or nonstereoselective pathways used.

But as far as consuming ascorbate from a fruit or consuming the correct stereoisomer, i really dont see too huge an issue. I mean sure certain compounds may inhibit or enhance absorption, but to some degree how does that really matter?

Ascorbate isn’t bound to anything like the other vitamins are. i think thats a bad example of the point you are trying to get across.

other vitamins are prosthetic groups to enzymes, and if somehow these vitamins which are complexed are better handled, that would be new information to me. I have never really seen evidence either way, mainly because i haven’t looked.