Heres my question
I used to just pop a multi vitamin, but lately have been curious as to if i should just supplement separately for the main ones? That being said, which vitamins should i pop seperatly from the multivitamin, if any. Or should i stick to the multi?
Iv seen a lot on this website people saying "take this much of zinc, vitamind b1, etc. so i just wanna know what the majority thinks.
There is no critical importance, if any at all, to exact amounts of any B vitamin. So, there is no real need to custom tailor them.
Multivitamins tend to provide Vitamin E in ways ranging usually from badly-cheap to cheap. Specifically, badly cheap is providing d,l-alpha tocopherol, and plain cheap is providing only d-alpha tocopherol. A few multivitamins will provide mixed tocopherols in a good proportion, but as this is somewhat expensive to do, most don’t.
So if using a multivitamin that provided d-alpha tocopherol, if wanting better Vitamin E supplementation than that, it would be necessary to add another supplement. Unfortunately, those products using d-alpha tocopherol as the sole source of Vitamin E usually provide so much of it (for example 400 IU) that it would take a lot of mixed tocopherols to get anything like a balance, this being one of the relatively few things where ratio of vitamins actually does have some importance.
Even were mixed tocopherols are provided well in a multivitamin, tocotrienols generally are omitted and would have to be supplemented separately if wanting to be actually complete in Vitamin E.
Vitamin K is often omitted entirely from multivitamins, and even where Vitamin K is included, the K2 form is usually omitted, as it is expensive. So if wanting to do better on Vitamin K2, then that also requires a supplementation separate from the multivitamin, in most cases.
Lastly with Vitamin D, most times a multivitamin does not provide an amount sufficient to give good blood levels, which often needs to be about 4000-6000 IU. But this is variable: for example if genuinely getting a lot of sun, a person doesn’t need any supplemental Vitamin D at all.
Careful, We know Most Multi-Vitamins Companies are crap, 'blows my mind that Ascorbic Acid is still used as
Vitmain C when it’s not even Vitamin C AT ALL.
Even Beta Carotene is CRAP without co-factors, eat Carrots instead lol…I mean, even in the
friggin 21st Century they are STILL discovering ingredients in Fruits and Vegetables
that are REQUIRED for these Vitamins to work properly!
It’s gets very deep and complex and most
Vitamin manufacturers don’t have a clue to the complexity, how deep down the Rabbit Hole
do ya wanna go Alice?..heh.
IDK everything, lol, but I’ve got the dish on each Vitamin most people aren’t
even aware of.
Purity Products is great, Life Extension’s stuff is pricey but good, off the ‘beaten path’ stuff is usually
the best stuff anyway, and you DO generally get what pay for and it’s a CRIME
most Companies wimp out and not add ‘K’…It works wonderfully with ‘D’, but
NOOOOO, it costs too much…what a joke.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
There is no critical importance, if any at all, to exact amounts of any B vitamin. So, there is no real need to custom tailor them.
Multivitamins tend to provide Vitamin E in ways ranging usually from badly-cheap to cheap. Specifically, badly cheap is providing d,l-alpha tocopherol, and plain cheap is providing only d-alpha tocopherol. A few multivitamins will provide mixed tocopherols in a good proportion, but as this is somewhat expensive to do, most don’t.
So if using a multivitamin that provided d-alpha tocopherol, if wanting better Vitamin E supplementation than that, it would be necessary to add another supplement. Unfortunately, those products using d-alpha tocopherol as the sole source of Vitamin E usually provide so much of it (for example 400 IU) that it would take a lot of mixed tocopherols to get anything like a balance, this being one of the relatively few things where ratio of vitamins actually does have some importance.
Even were mixed tocopherols are provided well in a multivitamin, tocotrienols generally are omitted and would have to be supplemented separately if wanting to be actually complete in Vitamin E.
Vitamin K is often omitted entirely from multivitamins, and even where Vitamin K is included, the K2 form is usually omitted, as it is expensive. So if wanting to do better on Vitamin K2, then that also requires a supplementation separate from the multivitamin, in most cases.
Lastly with Vitamin D, most times a multivitamin does not provide an amount sufficient to give good blood levels, which often needs to be about 4000-6000 IU. But this is variable: for example if genuinely getting a lot of sun, a person doesn’t need any supplemental Vitamin D at all.[/quote]
Sir, Would you comment on how necessary you think taking a multi vitamin is for a person who tends to eat a balanced diet containing lots of whole, unprocessed foods? In your opinion what are the most common nutrient deficiencies?
Clearly not “necessary” as necessary is a strong word, and any number of people do not do it and by all measures seem to be doing just fine, with no evidence at all that they individually would do better with the multivitamin.
Vitamins K and D are the vitamins that are the most commonly deficient. For D it’s a matter of fact, as corresponding blood levels can be measured and are often low. For K, I base it on epidemiological study (done in an European country; at the moment I’m not recalling which) where dietary intake of K was quite strongly correlated with cardiovascular risk, and with most American diets falling well short on K intake than the safer end of the studied dietary intake.
In your described situation with a lot of whole, unprocessed foods, and let’s say lots of leafy vegetables, K intake could well be entirely sufficient without supplementation.
With regard to mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols, there’s no evidence at all, and I doubt, that intake resulting from a quite-good diet may not already be 100% sufficient, where there would be no further benefit to yet-further intake.
However, when I looked into tocotrienol content of foods some while back, I did see that it would be quite easy to have a diet that by impression looked like a very fine whole foods diet that in fact was quite low in tocotrienol content. And oddly, one could have a pretty junky diet that had plenty.
I doubt that the difference is critically important.
It’s magnesium and zinc that are the more common nutrient deficiencies. But again, it’s entirely possible for a good diet to be entirely sufficient in both.
Thank you, kindly.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Clearly not “necessary” as necessary is a strong word, and any number of people do not do it and by all measures seem to be doing just fine, with no evidence at all that they individually would do better with the multivitamin.
Vitamins K and D are the vitamins that are the most commonly deficient. For D it’s a matter of fact, as corresponding blood levels can be measured and are often low. For K, I base it on epidemiological study (done in an European country; at the moment I’m not recalling which) where dietary intake of K was quite strongly correlated with cardiovascular risk, and with most American diets falling well short on K intake than the safer end of the studied dietary intake.
In your described situation with a lot of whole, unprocessed foods, and let’s say lots of leafy vegetables, K intake could well be entirely sufficient without supplementation.
With regard to mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols, there’s no evidence at all, and I doubt, that intake resulting from a quite-good diet may not already be 100% sufficient, where there would be no further benefit to yet-further intake.
However, when I looked into tocotrienol content of foods some while back, I did see that it would be quite easy to have a diet that by impression looked like a very fine whole foods diet that in fact was quite low in tocotrienol content. And oddly, one could have a pretty junky diet that had plenty.
I doubt that the difference is critically important.
It’s magnesium and zinc that are the more common nutrient deficiencies. But again, it’s entirely possible for a good diet to be entirely sufficient in both.[/quote]
Is there something specific we should be taking for Vitamin K? I see on the K2, there is all kinds of it. Some are cheap (Vitamin K2 (As Menaquinone)), others are expensive (Menatetrenone (Vitamin K2 [MK-4]).
Here ( http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/11/3100.long ) a group which had a menaquinone (Vitamin K2; there are a number of menaquinones which are forms of K2) dietary intake averaging 337 mcg/day had lower CHD risk than those with lesser intake.
This was as a not-directly-characterized mix of menaquinones, though it’s possible it largely could be puzzled out from the data given on individual food type intakes.
There appears to be a possibility that the result could be due to cheese intake for reasons unrelated to menaquinone intake, rather than to menaquinone intake itself. Perhaps further research will resolve that.
Here ( Publications & Nutrition Research Papers - Journal of the American Center for Nutrition ) dietary K1 (phytonadione, also called phylloquinone) intake was found to be strongly inversely associated with metabolic syndrome in US young adults, with the quartile having highest dietary intake averaging 188 mcg/day.
All of the supplements I’ve noticed which provide substantial amounts of K1 and K2 provide considerably more than these, so they’re probably fine.
However, when not consuming much in the way of leafy vegetables and cheese and not supplementing with a K1/K2 product, it could easily be possible to fall within the intake levels that have been found to be associated with higher disease risk.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thank you, kindly.[/quote]
Anytime 
“It’s magnesium and zinc that are the more common nutrient deficiencies”.
That’s debateable, we also are incredibly low in Iodine, Vitamin D, not enough Water consumption,
and ALL Minerals in general.
Celtic Sea Salt has EVERY SINGLE REQUIRED mineral you need without the need for pills,
and in perfect purportions too.
Why not post the content of this product for each mineral and then compare them with the amounts of calcium, magnesium, and zinc (as starters) a person needs per day as total intake?
I think you may be surprised.
actinium, antimony, arsenic, astatine, barium, beryllium, bismuth, boron, bromine, cadmium, calcium, carbon, cerium, cesium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorine, francium, gadolinium, gallium, germanium, gold, hafnium, holmium, hydrogen, indium, iodine, iridium, iron, lanthanum, lead, lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, neodymium, neptunium, nickel, niobium, nitrogen, osmium, oxygen, palladium, phosphorus, platinum, plutonium, polonium, potassium, praseodymium, protactinium, radium, rhenium, rhodium, rubidium, ruthenium, samarium, scandium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfur, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thallium, thorium, thulium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, wolfram, yttrium, ytterbium, zinc and zirconium.
You don’t need much…Trace elements are good, and WHO determines the AMOUNT what Vitamin
a human should consume anyway? The RDA standard? The same RDA standard that told us for years 400IU
a day was enough?
I’m not clear why you say the proportions are perfect where we’re talking about supplying dietary or supplemental minerals to a human, but you don’t have the proportions.
As it’s from sea water, let’s say the proportions are the same as sea water as a first estimate, though it’s not necessarily true.
So for example, zinc is present at 0.5 parts per million, while sodium is present at 10,800 ppm. So for every 1000 mg of sodium, there is less than 0.05 mg of zinc. This is hardly perfect for a person who has the slightest need of more zinc than from their food alone. It’s not just hardly perfect, it’s utterly useless.
Calcium is present at 411 ppm. So for every 1000 mg of sodium, there’s 38 mg of calcium. Not as ridiculous as with the zinc situation, but nearly useless if a person has much need of more calcium than from their food alone.
Magnesium is present at 1290 ppm. So for every 1000 mg of sodium, there’s 119 mg of magnesium. This one is not useless, but how could one argue a calcium:magnesium ratio of 411:1290 as being perfect? It’s more than backwards.
Sea water has the perfect proportion of minerals for sea life which is adapted to it, but it it no way is perfect mineral supplementation for humans. Those are marketing claims.
Most likely the reason they gave you the list but not the amounts, only the claim of perfection, is because the amounts ruin their sales story.
EDIT: Btw, just as a fun thing, the above is related to something that’s one of those things that “everyone knows” but for which evidence is never given, because it isn’t so.
Everyone knows that our blood has the same ratio of elements as sea water, that we still carry the ancient balance from the seas from where we sprang.
Because the values I had for human serum were in terms of molarity (which refers to numbers of atoms present per liter rather than milligrams per liter) I converted sea water values to that scale.
For every 1000 parts of sodium then, seawater has 21 parts potassium, 22 parts calcium, 113 parts magnesium, and 1200 parts chlorine.
And for every 1000 parts of sodium, human serum has 37 parts potassium, 35 parts calcium, 13 parts magnesium (vs 113!), and 760 parts chlorine.
Those ratios are far outside values ever seen in a human.
Yet “everyone knows” that our blood has the same ratios as the sea!
Or maybe as “the ancient sea…” but of course with no evidence that the ancient sea was so drastically different in ratios than today’s sea.
Just for fun: not actually relevant to supplementation, except that it’s an example of how health-food-author science can have nothing to do with fact.
Neither can many Prescription dispensing Doctor-Authors just the same.
Quackery does exist on the Natural and Pharmateucical sides of the Health undustry,
But the holocaust is clearly happening in the Pharmaceutical side…The “Vioxx”
fiasco is just the tip of the Iceberg, the Natural Health Food industry’s marketing
claims and such don’t even compare in the least as far as deception and loss of life.
Not even close.
So are you saying processed and heated Sodium Chloride is a better option than Sea Salt?
Are you able recommend a better and cheaper source of Minerals for the body than Sea Salt?
If you can, please share.
What “marketing”? Celtic Sea Salt is very inexpensive anyway… Everybody “Markets”, And if you’re in business, you “market” as well.
Please don’t misunderstand; of course I don’t mean to suggest that you shouldn’t use and like whatever it is that you like.
If any person feels that the amounts of minerals in sea salt suit them, then very good.
However there are also those that are interested in actual quantities, and for example, if wishing to supplement zinc, don’t want just 0.05 mg or other similarly low quantity.
But if you do, absolutely that’s your prerogative.
Fair enough, ones best to supplement with food anyway because “Vitamins” ALONE will not
work… as mentioned, too many co-factors involved in making them effective.
Like Vitamin C Pills without “Bioflavenoids” are absolutely useless…etc. etc.
I personally take Brewers Yeast for ALL my Vitamin B needs…MUCH cheaper than a “Vitamin B” Multi,
I don’t fall for the some of the Vitamin B pill ‘marketing’ either.
If you want to have a little fun try cronometer.com. It breaks down everything you eat and while not perfect, it will make it clear if you have a glaring deficiency in a particular vitamin or mineral. It can be very eye opening to those that think they are covering all their bases.