Jump to content

Menu

Multivitamin Recommendations?


TheAttachedMama
 Share

Recommended Posts

let me start off by saying - you want to look at the molecular form of the vitamin they are using.  some are much more bioavailble than others, which means you are getting more for the money you are spending.   (if it doens't give the molecular form - do not waste your money.)

 

I am partial to emerald labs.  I buy off amazon.

 

other good brands, I'm just not into their formula, or they have something I can't have.

 

thorne

jarrow

now

swanson's

pure encapsulations

douglas laboratories

rainbow light (the first gummy I could get dudeling to take was their gummy bear essentials.)

 

 

eta: I've been "exposed" to three different vitamins that are mlm.  people swear by them.  they are total and complete garbage. before I knew now, - I did try them, and they made me ill.  the last time dh asked me to just look at them - I had to work hard to find out what was in it, because they were hiding it (should be a clue.)  - total garbage.  but expensive.

Edited by gardenmom5
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I do not take a multivitamin. 

 

Here's why: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/10/07/the-top-five-vitamins-you-should-not-take/#261fe5454a27  

(note: in the case of lung cancer and beta carotene, what this article did not note is that people with a higher level of beta carotene consumption in food did have a decrease in lung cancer.) 

 

Similar article (not as detailed but supporting the same conclusion) from Web MD; https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20131216/experts-dont-waste-your-money-on-multivitamins#1

 

It appears that taking your nutrients as part of the complex mix of nutrients, phytonutrients, etc. in food is very healthy for you. Pulling the nutrients out of their natural package not so much. 

 

The exception is if you are truly deficient in a certain vitamin or mineral and can't get enough to make up for your deficiency through food intake or in the case of VIt D, food and sun. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the fact that multivitamin use is associated with a higher death rate, and that mostly you're paying to have very expensive yellow pee, you need to remember that supplements are wholly unregulated. Your multivitamin might contain massively larger doses of vitamins and minerals than it claims, or much lower doses, or even include things which are potentially toxic.

 

If you intend to take a multivitamin, please check Consumer Reports to see what they recommend. Don't trust us. Trust the people who have taken the time to thoroughly examine each brand

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I do not take a multivitamin. 

 

Here's why: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/10/07/the-top-five-vitamins-you-should-not-take/#261fe5454a27  

(note: in the case of lung cancer and beta carotene, what this article did not note is that people with a higher level of beta carotene consumption in food did have a decrease in lung cancer.) 

 

Similar article (not as detailed but supporting the same conclusion) from Web MD; https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20131216/experts-dont-waste-your-money-on-multivitamins#1

 

It appears that taking your nutrients as part of the complex mix of nutrients, phytonutrients, etc. in food is very healthy for you. Pulling the nutrients out of their natural package not so much. 

 

The exception is if you are truly deficient in a certain vitamin or mineral and can't get enough to make up for your deficiency through food intake or in the case of VIt D, food and sun. 

I looked over the Forbes link and tracked down the studies that the author was referring to. One of the studies was about the risk of mortality in older women that took multivitamins. The problem is that it was an observational study not an RTC. You would need to account for the question of why all these ladies were taking multivitamins in the first place. Maybe they were taking them more than the general population because they felt sick or were sick in some way. I more ludicrous version of a study like this would be to look at 50000 hospital admission and then to suggest that going to hospital increases your mortality rate.

 

The other study that was sited was looking at RTC data but it was about the increase of mortality due to prostate cancer in healthy men that took multivitamins. I didn't look very closely at this study but you really would need to ask whether or not this had any relevance to women at all and whether or not the all-causes mortality rate was affected at all. In other words, maybe a man's risk of prostate cancer increases by 0.5% but they're chance of dying of any other cause decreases by 15%.

 

Studies can be seriously misleading without closer examination. Media (like Forbes) is going to do the job of filtering the study results for you and this is often done by journalists rather than scientists or statisticians. It's prudent to always hunt down the study yourself and discern whether or not the results are clinically relevant (ie. whether or not they should change your actions). Maybe you did this and came to some other conclusions about the studies. I'd like to hear your thoughts if you did.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked over the Forbes link and tracked down the studies that the author was referring to. One of the studies was about the risk of mortality in older women that took multivitamins. The problem is that it was an observational study not an RTC. You would need to account for the question of why all these ladies were taking multivitamins in the first place. Maybe they were taking them more than the general population because they felt sick or were sick in some way. I more ludicrous version of a study like this would be to look at 50000 hospital admission and then to suggest that going to hospital increases your mortality rate.

 

The other study that was sited was looking at RTC data but it was about the increase of mortality due to prostate cancer in healthy men that took multivitamins. I didn't look very closely at this study but you really would need to ask whether or not this had any relevance to women at all and whether or not the all-causes mortality rate was affected at all. In other words, maybe a man's risk of prostate cancer increases by 0.5% but they're chance of dying of any other cause decreases by 15%.

 

Studies can be seriously misleading without closer examination. Media (like Forbes) is going to do the job of filtering the study results for you and this is often done by journalists rather than scientists or statisticians. It's prudent to always hunt down the study yourself and discern whether or not the results are clinically relevant (ie. whether or not they should change your actions). Maybe you did this and came to some other conclusions about the studies. I'd like to hear your thoughts if you did.

Did you notice the credentials of the author? You can click on his bio. I did before I posted it. Hint: he's not a journalist. ETA: Here's his bio: 

 

I'm the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University. From 2005-2011 I was the Horvitz Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining UMD, I was at The Institute for Genomic Research, where I sequenced the genomes of many bacteria, including those used in the 2001 anthrax attacks. At TIGR I was part of the Human Genome Project and the co-founder of the influenza virus sequencing project (which is when I first learned of the anti-vaccine movement). My research group develops software for DNA sequence analysis, and our (free) software is used by scientific laboratories around the globe. I did my B.A. and M.S. at Yale University, and my Ph.D. at Harvard University, and I have published over 200 scientific papers

 

I have, in fact, noted these types of studies for a number of years and saved links, but mention was made of many of them all in one article which is more useful for a thread, I think, and less work for me than digging all the other links up. 

 

So, yes, I've read the studies for myself for years. 

 

Edited by Laurie4b
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me start off by saying - you want to look at the molecular form of the vitamin they are using. some are much more bioavailble than others, which means you are getting more for the money you are spending. (if it doens't give the molecular form - do not waste your money.)

 

I am partial to emerald labs. I buy off amazon.

 

other good brands, I'm just not into their formula, or they have something I can't have.

 

thorne

jarrow

now

swanson's

pure encapsulations

douglas laboratories

rainbow light (the first gummy I could get dudeling to take was their gummy bear essentials.)

 

 

eta: I've been "exposed" to three different vitamins that are mlm. people swear by them. they are total and complete garbage. before I knew now, - I did try them, and they made me ill. the last time dh asked me to just look at them - I had to work hard to find out what was in it, because they were hiding it (should be a clue.) - total garbage. but expensive.

I take whatever gardenmom5 recommends. She has a lot of knowledge about supplements and which brands to take.

 

To answer the OP's question though, no, I do not take a muultivitamin.

Edited by trulycrabby
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you notice the credentials of the author? You can click on his bio. I did before I posted it. Hint: he's not a journalist. ETA: Here's his bio: 

 

I'm the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University. From 2005-2011 I was the Horvitz Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining UMD, I was at The Institute for Genomic Research, where I sequenced the genomes of many bacteria, including those used in the 2001 anthrax attacks. At TIGR I was part of the Human Genome Project and the co-founder of the influenza virus sequencing project (which is when I first learned of the anti-vaccine movement). My research group develops software for DNA sequence analysis, and our (free) software is used by scientific laboratories around the globe. I did my B.A. and M.S. at Yale University, and my Ph.D. at Harvard University, and I have published over 200 scientific papers

 

I have, in fact, noted these types of studies for a number of years and saved links, but mention was made of many of them all in one article which is more useful for a thread, I think, and less work for me than digging all the other links up. 

 

So, yes, I've read the studies for myself for years. 

 

Alright, I'm sorry. I should have dug even further. The studies that I noticed still have issues but I'm sorry that I didn't look into that more before saying something.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I'm just using the store brand multivitamin, is that a waste?  

 

depends upon the store.  most store brands, use low quality molecular forms - are not worth the money.  I did obtain some benefit from a middle of the road drug-store b-complex.  it took a week of being OFF of it, for me to notice a difference.  - and yes, there was much yellow pee because I wasn't absorbing much of it.  (but it was better than nothing.)

I started emerald labs b-healthy, most bioavailable forms, and three days . . it was like someone flipped a light switch.  I do not have yellow pee from this formula.

 

This is what dh and I take. It’s the first multivitamin I’ve ever had that I can tell a difference, in improved immunity and energy level. https://www.vitacost.com/natures-plus-source-of-life-multi-vitamin-and-mineral-supplement-180-tablets/?pd_section=pr#ProductReviews

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

yeah - amazing what a good quality/bioavailable vitamin is like.

 

I also take a rx folate.  I had been taking thorne, but needed a higher dose so i was switched to rx-deplin (cheaper than buying the thorne).  within days,  I could feel the step backwards.  I started with a ND, who found a compounding pharmacy that sourced their mthf from the same place as thorne.  so, I switched. after three days - yep, THIS is what it's supposed to feel like.

 

In addition to the fact that multivitamin use is associated with a higher death rate, and that mostly you're paying to have very expensive yellow pee, you need to remember that supplements are wholly unregulated. Your multivitamin might contain massively larger doses of vitamins and minerals than it claims, or much lower doses, or even include things which are potentially toxic.

 

If you intend to take a multivitamin, please check Consumer Reports to see what they recommend. Don't trust us. Trust the people who have taken the time to thoroughly examine each brand

tbh- CR is crap for vitamins.  I trust my ND - NOT them.

for the study, I want to know the EXACT vitamins people were taking, their dose, what rx they were taking. etc.   because it matters. a lot.  

what was their health?   did they have a mthf mutation - cause that *really* affects things.

 

 

dd is a pharmacist.  every single week, in at least one class - "the supplement industry is a rip-off".  this was at the same time I had taken dudeling off of everything because he was doing his eval, and I wanted them to see him exactly how he was.  she was one of the first "when are you putting him back on his supplements!?!?!???"  because they did make a huge difference for him.  (rainbow light was a gummy I could get him to take, it was an improvement that all of us could see.  I now have him on EL because they are better quality.)

 

there are a lot of supplement brands that are crap.  most of the vitamins sold - are crap.  most otc vitamins - dont' even list their molecular form.  (and too many dont' even contain what they say they contain.)  they must be bioavailable forms.  vitamin water (enjoy their labels) - is crap.  I refuse to buy any vitamin from costco - they're cheap and poor quality - even though some are some of the biggest names in the supplement market.

 

if a vitamin is NOT bioavailable  - meaning - this is the form your body uses - it has to be converted by the body.  this can be toxic to the liver since that is where most conversion is happening.  if you are taking bioavailable - there is no need for conversion.

 

one of the absolute worst things for someone  with a mthf mutaion - is folic acid.  however - it's in way too many foods as an additive (at the behest and support of western medicine) - but it is 100% SYNTHETIC and must be absorbed and converted to be used. for those of us with a mthf mutation (especially homozygous) - it is very difficult to use, and actually blocks the absorption of natural folate by clogging folate receptors.

 

 

 

about brands.

some of the ones I mentioned - are pricey.  some are cheap (and lower quality/marginal).

thorne is considered the creme de la creme.  it is now "approved/used" by the US Olympic committee - the only brand that is. it is also most rec'd by ND's.  but it is expensive. 

within a brand, - some things are good/ok - some I avoid.   eg. NOW - is one, some things I like, some things I avoid.

but it all comes back to bioavilable - and molecular form.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.amazon.com/SmartyPants-Womens-Complete-Gummy-Vitamins/dp/B01B1JPXBE/ref=sr_1_3_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1513631178&sr=8-3&keywords=smarty%2Bpants%2Bvitamins%2Bwomen&th=1

 

My family takes Smarty Pants for women. My DD and husband really notice a difference. I sometimes do, but the other kids do not. Not sure if it is the best quality, but since my DD doens't swallow pills well, gummies are an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm sorry. I should have dug even further. The studies that I noticed still have issues but I'm sorry that I didn't look into that more before saying something.

 

 

You asked before how I've come to my conclusions: it's the overall trajectory of the studies.  It has been my practice that when I read about a study that interests me in the mainstream press, I go look up the original study and have for years (since the internet!) . Initially, there will tend to be a clump of studies that holds out a positive effect (often based on dietary intake of a nutrient) and then, some time later, there is a correction. The overall trend is for the correction to show no help or even harm.   The beta-carotene studies for smokers were one of the worst examples of this. 

 

So for me, yes,  that one study may be for prostate cancer, but it's consistent with other studies for other specific nutrients distilled into supplement form.  And you're certainly right, that an observational study about multivitamin intake may indicate they were already not feeling well and trying to self-medicate; however, I believe that taking vitamins is typically associated with a clump of healthy behaviors. But that was not detailed in the study. 

 

40 years ago, I was told to take Vit E for fibrocystic breasts. I thought, what could be the harm? Turns out it didn't help and there is possible harm. That's what got me started on reading studies. And in that period of time, the trend of the studies has been in the same direction.

 

One theory that keeps coming up to explain that is that our food, whether you believe it was designed by God or evolved that way, has complex combinations of nutrients and it may be the complex group of nutrients (for instance whatever combo tends to occur in foods that are high in beta carotene)  that are protective. Then when we try to remove one, and even more try to recreate it synthetically, it is reasonable to think that it may not have the same effect as good food. That explanation makes sense to me and I've seen scientists cite it, but I do not know if it is  proven yet. 

 

So that's how I arrived at my conclusions. 

 

My current practice is to take supplements only if I cannot correct the deficiency through food (or sun in the case of Vit.D)  I realize that even then, I'm taking a risk.  But weighing the risk of insufficient nutrients with the still unknown risk of supplementing those specific ones, I made a calculate choice to take the supplements. 

Edited by Laurie4b
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...