McKenzie-Yes, vitamins are essential. That is part of their definition. No, there is no evidence to support that your daily multivitamin has a beneficial effect on your health, whether you feel it does or not.
There is plenty of evidence that when ingesting a multi-vitamin supplement that vitamins enter the body and are absorbed for useful purposes. ie. the Vitamin C is absorbed or the Potassium etc. By definition that is essential....not beneficial. It’s not a matter of benefits…it’s a matter of essential vitamin intake. There is no evidence which shows that supplement ingestion does not supply these vitamins.
In so far as any other type of ingestion of vitamins(through meat, fruits, drinks or cereals) is beneficial to health, so are vitamin supplements.
Obviously we covered over dosing and I don’t argue that too much of most things is unhealthy. Eating 1 lb. of chocolate a day is unhealthy and will lead to
problems. Taking a mega-dose of 5-10-20 times the RDI for a vitamin can’t be healthy either. Perhaps research will show that some vitamins cannot exceed 2-3 times the RDI dose in the future.
It probably also does little harm, but both benefit and harm have to be determined by research evidence, not just “common sense,” how you feel, or whatever else you are suggesting.
Well, I’m perfectly justified in making anecdotal observations about how I felt or thought I felt after stopping supplements. Having the knowledge that a large part of vitamins work is the efficient breakdown of other nutrients(fats, proteins, sugars) to provide energy for everything from cell-division to wakefulness allows me to make a reasoned observation that my slight increase in lethargy could have been due to the absence of the usual amounts and types of compounds in my system.
I’m not attempting to advertise or distribute vitamins supplements. I don’t need to get a scientific test too support my anecdotal evidence concerning my experiences. Experiences which have direct, observable cross-corollary connections. And ones I admitted could be placebo. But probably weren’t.
McKenzie-If you get all that is essential from your ordinary diet, which most people do (though I understand you don’t believe that), then any additional is extra and unnecessary, useless at best and possibly harmful. Extra supplementation of essential vitamins can be useless.
I would like to see the scientific papers on what constitutes “extra” and “useless”. Also what is an ordinary diet? If it is one that follows the RDI guidelines such as the Food Pyramid(or whatever they call it now) estimations are that many people are not getting the required daily allowances of fruits and vegetables or brans or meats etc..
In fact a percentage of people’s nutrition is being benefited through the industrial vitamin supplementation of the foods they eat from factories.
Like iron in flour or Vitamin D in milk. Kind of ironic for your argument no?
I know I don’t follow the food pyramid. Was the food pyramid your baseline for what you termed an “ordinary diet”?
The fact that vitamins are essential doesn’t mean that you are getting any benefit from a supplement unless you have a vitamin deficient diet or a specific medical condition for which a supplment is indicated. And even though supplements can have specific benefits in particular situations, the proof of this comes from controlled research, not from the mere fact that they are biologically active compounds or the anecdote you provided to support taking them.
We covered this already. I’m quite certain that scientific tests(blood work for example) would show that a percentage of the vitamins I received from a supplementation tablet would be absorbed and metabolized by my body. That could be termed beneficial in the sense that the human body needs
those compounds and in fact used them for biological processes. They are no more or less beneficial than eating carrots, hot dogs or bananas.
Yes it could. Or it could be do to many other causes. Only controlled research can distinguish between the appearance of a causal relationship where one doesn’t exist and a real causal relationship. The classic example is that the presence of matches in your pocket is associated with lung cancer, so one could argue that matches cause lung cancer. The real explanation, of course, is that smoking causes lung cancer and carrying matches is correlated with smoking but by itself has no effect on cancer risk. Science exists to identify caual relationships because things aren’t always what they seem.
Lot’s of hocus pocus from you McKenzie. “Things aren’t what they seem” “Matches in pockets” unbalanced analogies and strawmen/herrings.
Pamphleteering. Most of the time things are exactly what they seem!
If you make the claim: “I took aspirin and my headache went away.” you don’t have to prove anything. This is just an observation of a sequence of events.
Yup, I agree.
However , if you say “Aspirin is an effective treatment for headaches” and your only evidence for this is “I took aspirin and my headache went away,” you haven’t proven the first claim.
Like I said, I’m not selling vitamins. But we know that science can easily show that the ingestion of vitamin supplements will introduce compounds that are useful to the body. And will be shown to have been used by the body. Science knows this already. So there is my evidence. Observing that I felt I had less energy after abstaining from Mutivitamins for 6 days was a logical conclusion based on what science can prove about digestion and metabolism(of supplements) and the research that shows that vitamins are directly related to converting nutrients into energy.
It’s the same exact thing as abstaining from water for three days. If a person experiences headaches, there is 100% chance that that is do to dehydration. 100%.
If someone made that claim..no one on Earth would ever say we have to do tests to see what’s causing the headaches. Ever! The stupidest doctor right up to the Surgeon General would automatically attribute those headaches to dehydration. Once they determined that the subject had not drank water in 3 days.
To again use an analogy, people with cancer often pray to be healed, and sometimes their cancer goes away. This does not, however, prove prayer cured their cancer. That requires controlled research.
Cheap. Pathetic. From a moderator! But that’s all you got. Circumlocution, and strawmen.
The whole point here is not about how you feel. If you feel better taking supllements, I couldn’t possibly argue that you don’t, and I don’t have any interest in talking you out of doing so.
This should be followed up with “...the point is...” What is the point you are making McKenzie? So far you have made valid points regarding mega dosing vitamins, and points which show that basically someone can get vitamins from food and/or vitamin supplements.
And if you take supplements despite controlled scientific evidence that they are of no value and increase your disease risk slightly, then there’s nothing wrong with my pointing to that evidence and suggesting that it is probably more reliable a guide to the truth than your individual experience.
Where’s this scientific evidence that supplements are of no value?
My whole point in post #152 above was that personal experiences are very psychologically compelling and hard to ignore, and they are also unreliable, and the combination makes it really hard to convince people that their experiences may not be a good guide to what’s true, whether we are talking about religion or dietary supplements.
Yes, I’m observing the same thing in your knee-jerk-reactionary responses. I take into consideration your zealous pseuo profession of fighting CAM and all other
notions you deem as “valueless’ or “illogical”. Your dedication shows in the lengths you stretch out to support your arguments.
My main argument has been from page one that: Vitamin supplements when ingested provide the body with useful compounds that are digested and metabolized.
That means put to use by the body for biologic processes. Science can and has shown this.
McKenzie-I’m not suggesting you are any different than any of the rest of us in this. In fact the anger that you express at having your beliefs challenged is very common among proponents of all kinds of health-related beliefs, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and all sorts of other beliefs. People don’t like being told that they way things feel to them may not reflect how things actually are, which is part of why skepticism and science are so often disliked or disregarded.
Like I said, I feel the same way about your argument.