4 of 8
4
Vitamin D supplements?
Posted: 05 August 2009 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 05 August 2009 08:08 AM
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:04 AM

I can’t believe this is coming from you. “normal diet”...“most people”..

What’s the problem?

VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:04 AM

Like Jules or Asanta said above…“no data this month!“The US Govt. allowed TV commercials extolling the healing powers of Vita C…Zinc…contained in foods and supplements.

Nonsense.

The problem is “normal diet” and “most people” are not measurable attributes. It’s way too arbitrary. From everything we see in papers, and reports Vitamin D isn’t the only nutrient missing in peoples “normal diets”.
Besides that…what measurable effects are we seeing concerning the millions of people who are deficient in Vitamin D?
What measurable effects are we seeing as a result of all the people who are deficient in other nutrients?

What is nonsense?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

The problem is “normal diet” and “most people” are not measurable attributes. It’s way too arbitrary.

“Most people” is demonstrably measurable. It means more than 50%, or in this context, the vast majority of the US population. And since “normal diet” means the diet most people eat, it is also measurable, and indeed, it has been measured. That’s how these sorts of health issues come up: because people doing the statistics know that most people don’t eat large amounts of mackerel or salmon and drink four glasses of milk a day.

VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

From everything we see in papers, and reports Vitamin D isn’t the only nutrient missing in peoples “normal diets”.

Hogwash. What nutrient is missing? Where is the data?

What experts do say is that americans eat too much fat, too much meat, and not enough fruits and vegetables. But that isn’t an issue of vitamins.

VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

Besides that…what measurable effects are we seeing concerning the millions of people who are deficient in Vitamin D?

Read the papers I cited in the OP of this thread. They talk about a variety of ailments.

VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

What is nonsense?

The claim that vitamin C and zinc supplements have any healing powers.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

I believe you about the C and the Zinc. I’m making a point that the Government allowed marketing of these agents as protections against colds and flus. The same government that sets the RDA standards.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

Besides that…what measurable effects are we seeing concerning the millions of people who are deficient in Vitamin D?

Read the papers I cited in the OP of this thread. They talk about a variety of ailments.

So when the Govt. raises the standards, and people start getting 1000 units of Vita-D we’ll see a measurable decline in these said ailments?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:33 AM

I believe you about the C and the Zinc. I’m making a point that the Government allowed marketing of these agents as protections against colds and flus. The same government that sets the RDA standards.

Be clear—which arm of the government allowed these agents to be marketed? Are you sure that they actively allowed them? When? Why?

Without that sort of information, you aren’t making any clear point. As a matter of fact, under pressure from the companies that produce them, Congress watered down regulations on so-called “dietary supplements”, e.g., in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. See, e.g., HERE.

The FTC regulates supplement advertising, and on my understanding has largely dropped the ball, probably because it is too understaffed to do the work of policing thousands of commercials.

The RDA standards are recommended by the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences. Further, The Institute of Medicine ... is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization.

So no, it’s not “the government” that is setting RDA standards.

(You will also see from the RDA wiki webpage that the standards for vitamin D and calcium are under review until 2010).

At any rate, Vyazma, your points are off topic here, since none of the sources I cited in the OP of this thread were government sources. I cited Consumer Reports, Harvard and UC Berkeley. They all advocate raising the RDA of vitamin D, but so far as I know, no other supplement for the general population.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:35 AM

So when the Govt. raises the standards, and people start getting 1000 units of Vita-D we’ll see a measurable decline in these said ailments?

There are a lot of “ifs” here; you can’t make a blanket statement like that.

If the government raises the RDA, that doesn’t imply that people will immediately take more vitamin D.
If people take more vitamin D, that doesn’t imply that they will take sufficiently more to make a difference.

and perhaps most importantly for this thread,

there still appears to be some disagreement about the quality of the science behind an increase in the vitamin D levels. Some very respected organizations have come out in favor of it, but others haven’t yet weighed in. So some people will prefer to wait on the sidelines and see what other studies show.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 05 August 2009 04:46 AM
Jules - 05 August 2009 04:30 AM

Asanta, I had just thought that multivitamins were “OK” when I first came on the forum, while now I see that they are unnecessary in most cases. Before that I’d thought of them as “insurance” of getting proper doses.

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t advocate for multivitamins generally, and so far as I’m aware none of the organizations I cited at the top of this thread (Consumer Reports, UC Berkeley, Harvard) advocate for vitamin supplements apart from vitamin D.

I had to stray off topic to refute this. You do advocate for supplements. Multi-vitamins are just a pill-form supplement.
Foodstuffs have been consistently “fortified” for along time now. Flour is enriched with iron. Milk with vita-D. Peanut Butter, orange juice, breakfast cereals, yogurts, fruit juices, waffles, table salt etc…
You recognized the necessity to have these foods supplemented or fortified, or else “normal diets” would be lacking in a whole host of nutrients.
Just like Vitamin D now, throughout the years scientists, in conjunction with the Govt have raised or created dietary standards to improve nutrition. And I’m sure it has increased the general health of the population. I never disagreed with you on this. I’m sure D needs to be increased, if these scientists say so. I’m just trying to point out that when these revelations come up, recommendations on diet are suggested, AND artificially fortifying foodstuffs take place. Supplements. Whether in pill-form, or 50lb sacks dumped into the industrial grade mixer at the Nutella factory.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 09:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 05 August 2009 09:05 AM
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:33 AM

I believe you about the C and the Zinc. I’m making a point that the Government allowed marketing of these agents as protections against colds and flus. The same government that sets the RDA standards.

Be clear—which arm of the government allowed these agents to be marketed? Are you sure that they actively allowed them? When? Why?

Without that sort of information, you aren’t making any clear point. As a matter of fact, under pressure from the companies that produce them, Congress watered down regulations on so-called “dietary supplements”, e.g., in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. See, e.g., HERE.

The FTC regulates supplement advertising, and on my understanding has largely dropped the ball, probably because it is too understaffed to do the work of policing thousands of commercials.

The RDA standards are recommended by the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences. Further, The Institute of Medicine ... is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization.

So no, it’s not “the government” that is setting RDA standards.

(You will also see from the RDA wiki webpage that the standards for vitamin D and calcium are under review until 2010).

At any rate, Vyazma, your points are off topic here, since none of the sources I cited in the OP of this thread were government sources. I cited Consumer Reports, Harvard and UC Berkeley. They all advocate raising the RDA of vitamin D, but so far as I know, no other supplement for the general population.

My apologies.. I thought the USDA or the FDA had something to do with RDA.
In regards to the Vita C and Zinc…I’m talking about the cough drops that are the shelves with C and Zinc. They are/were advertised on TV and elsewhere as having preventative effects against colds and flus. Anyways..yes this is off-topic. My focus was on supplements.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 09:22 AM
dougsmith - 05 August 2009 04:46 AM
Jules - 05 August 2009 04:30 AM

Asanta, I had just thought that multivitamins were “OK” when I first came on the forum, while now I see that they are unnecessary in most cases. Before that I’d thought of them as “insurance” of getting proper doses.

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t advocate for multivitamins generally, and so far as I’m aware none of the organizations I cited at the top of this thread (Consumer Reports, UC Berkeley, Harvard) advocate for vitamin supplements apart from vitamin D.

I had to stray off topic to refute this. You do advocate for supplements. Multi-vitamins are just a pill-form supplement.
Foodstuffs have been consistently “fortified” for along time now. Flour is enriched with iron. Milk with vita-D. Peanut Butter, orange juice, breakfast cereals, yogurts, fruit juices, waffles, table salt etc…
You recognized the necessity to have these foods supplemented or fortified, or else “normal diets” would be lacking in a whole host of nutrients.
Just like Vitamin D now, throughout the years scientists, in conjunction with the Govt have raised or created dietary standards to improve nutrition. And I’m sure it has increased the general health of the population. I never disagreed with you on this. I’m sure D needs to be increased, if these scientists say so. I’m just trying to point out that when these revelations come up, recommendations on diet are suggested, AND artificially fortifying foodstuffs take place. Supplements. Whether in pill-form, or 50lb sacks dumped into the industrial grade mixer at the Nutella factory.

Where did I say that I didn’t advocate for supplements? The whole point of this thread is that I saw credible organizations recommending taking vitamin D supplements, and so I have decided to take them!

What I don’t advocate (because no credible scientific organization supports it) is taking multivitamin supplements, as I said in the above quote. Of course, when I don’t advocate for multivitamins, I am doing so in the context of a world in which some of our foods are already fortified. Were they not fortified, perhaps it would be useful for some people, sometimes, to take other supplements as well. But that’s a hypothetical that is of no interest to me. I’m interested in what people should do right now, in the world we live in right now.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

What I don’t advocate (because no credible scientific organization supports it) is taking multivitamin supplements, as I said in the above quote. Of course, when I don’t advocate for multivitamins, I am doing so in the context of a world in which some of our foods are already fortified. Were they not fortified, perhaps it would be useful for some people, sometimes, to take other supplements as well. But that’s a hypothetical that is of no interest to me. I’m interested in what people should do right now, in the world we live in right now.

Well that’s just it! Eating a bowl of Total is the same as taking a Multi-vitamin. What if someone didn’t want to eat Total, or any other significant fortified foods? I can then see reason to advocate a multi-vitamin.
Just like you said you weren’t prepared to drink 3 cups of milk and 7oz of mackerel. You are prepared to take a D supplement.
What’s the difference? Multi? or singular? Especially when all the data isn’t out yet about D.
Would others be wrong in advocating Multi-vitamins? Would they be wrong in advocating Coco-Puffs, or Ovaltine?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 10:10 AM

Well that’s just it! Eating a bowl of Total is the same as taking a Multi-vitamin. What if someone didn’t want to eat Total, or any other significant fortified foods? I can then see reason to advocate a multi-vitamin.
Just like you said you weren’t prepared to drink 3 cups of milk and 7oz of mackerel. You are prepared to take a D supplement.
What’s the difference? Multi? or singular? Especially when all the data isn’t out yet about D.
Would others be wrong in advocating Multi-vitamins? Would they be wrong in advocating Coco-Puffs, or Ovaltine?

You don’t need to eat a bowl of Total every day anymore than you have to take a multivitamin every day. (They amount to the same thing, as you say). Don’t swallow their advertising campaign.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
dougsmith - 05 August 2009 10:44 AM
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 10:10 AM

Well that’s just it! Eating a bowl of Total is the same as taking a Multi-vitamin. What if someone didn’t want to eat Total, or any other significant fortified foods? I can then see reason to advocate a multi-vitamin.
Just like you said you weren’t prepared to drink 3 cups of milk and 7oz of mackerel. You are prepared to take a D supplement.
What’s the difference? Multi? or singular? Especially when all the data isn’t out yet about D.
Would others be wrong in advocating Multi-vitamins? Would they be wrong in advocating Coco-Puffs, or Ovaltine?

You don’t need to eat a bowl of Total every day anymore than you have to take a multivitamin every day. (They amount to the same thing, as you say). Don’t swallow their advertising campaign.

Then how does one get their RDA’s? From their “normal” diets?
I mean these RDA’s list everything from A to Zinc! Chrome, Thiamine, Molybdenum, Copper, Iron, K, C, Manganese, Riboflavin etc…etc..! Maybe most of these minerals can be found in a 6oz steak. Maybe in a Big Mac?
I’m still wondering what “normal diets” entails in the US. Why do they fortify foods with supplements? The great Super-power status of the Industrial Giant USA.
Did the forerunners of the Vitamin D scientists, 50 years ago, or 70 years ago, also determine that various vitamins can be added to foods to improve nutrition? Probably.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 11:04 AM

Then how does one get their RDA’s? From their “normal” diets?

Yes. All those vitamins and minerals are in the foods we eat.

For the history of our knowledge of vitamins, take a look at the wiki page on vitamins.

We fortify foods partly to insure that people with poorer diets are assured of getting all the necessary vitamins. IIRC this was more of a problem in the early part of the 20th century when malnutrition was more widespread in the US.

But for products like Total cereal, the vitamins aren’t added for any health benefit. They are added as a marketing scheme to get people to associate the cereal with health.

The RDA is the recommended daily allowance, so if Total cereal gives you 100% of that vitamin, that is almost certainly way too much, since you will get that vitamin from other sources during the day. (With the possible exception of vitamin D, as we have been discussing in this thread).

There are some conditions and diseases in which it can be beneficial to supplement certain vitamins, e.g., pregnant women are advised to take folic acid (B9) supplements. But not the general population.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7716
Joined  2008-04-11
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 07:46 AM

Doug-

Vyazma, you misunderstand. The point is not that vitamins are woo, nor that vitamin supplements are woo. The point is that with our normal diet we don’t need to be supplementing it with additional multivitamin pills; they are not woo, they are unnecessary.

Except, that is, in the case of vitamin D. Or so it would seem from the data from these sources I’ve been citing.

Define normal diet. Is this a diet in which all the necessary nutrients, vitamins and minerals are obtained in a day?
How many people eat this diet? All the people who do eat this diet, don’t need supplements- the rest do. The rest do by an extension of the Vitamin D case here.
I would say the “rest” is the majority of consumers.
And like I said, how many people would need to supplement their diet with pills, if many of the foods we eat weren’t “fortified” already?
I can only imagine the cases of scurvy and rickets if foods weren’t artificially fortified already.

Generally you would get the vitamins you need unless you eat a very restrictive diet (like vegan or a weird weight loss diet that I would discourage anyway). If you don’t get it today, you’ll get it tomorrow. Vitamins are not like penicillin where you need to make sure you get you doses exactly every day, your body can store some of the vitamins for a time (the fat soluble ones) and it is difficult to eliminate the water soluble one unless you died is very restrictive.

A vitamin does NOT carry the entire complement of the vitamin. A vitamin ‘B’ pill for example doesn’t carry the entire ‘B’ complex. It only carries what they think is most important or what had been discovered at the time (I wonder if they update them). You get a more complete vitamin by eating the foods that carry them. Also, if you take the vitamins with certain foods, it will decrease their bioavailibility. Same thing happens when you combine certain foods (I think spinach and milk are an example of this). But all in all, you usually get adequate vitamins in your foods. As I pointed out to Jules, in the ICU we do not ordinarily give vitamins to critically ill children unless they cannot eat, or have acute digestive issues like Cystic Fibrosis or Crohns Disease to name a few. In the Neonatal ICU however, we DO routinely dispense vitamins to preemies who have NO stores to draw from. Studies have shown this to be beneficial.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2009 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7716
Joined  2008-04-11
VYAZMA - 05 August 2009 08:18 AM

Nonsense.

The problem is “normal diet” and “most people” are not measurable attributes. It’s way too arbitrary. From everything we see in papers, and reports Vitamin D isn’t the only nutrient missing in peoples “normal diets”.
Besides that…what measurable effects are we seeing concerning the millions of people who are deficient in Vitamin D?
What measurable effects are we seeing as a result of all the people who are deficient in other nutrients?

What is nonsense?

Rickets was a BIG problem in the US until they started fortifying milk with Vitamin D. and so was Pellegra which is why grains are fortified with B complex vitamins, which is why you see Niacin on the ingredient list. Most of these deficiencies occurred among the rural poor and was especially acute during the Depression.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 8
4