What vitamins or supplements do you take on a daily basis?

Quote by DamonX
Unless you are homeless, a drug addict, or have a crazy weird diet, you will not be deficient in any of the essential nutrients.

Quote by noll


I guess that makes vegetarian/vegan diets crazy weird ;) #B12

Quote by SilentBeauty
Fish oil/omega 3 capsuals as well as vitaim c and muti vitamins gummies.

Quote by DamonX


Ok... So you are taking a multi vitamin which already has more vitamin C that any human being would ever need... So why are you taking extra vitamin C on top of that?

I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is a water soluble vitamin. That means it's not stored in your body. If you take more than you need, it's excreted in your urine. So essentially what you are doing is paying 20-30 dollars a month for bright orange colored pee.

Please explain...

In the meantime, I have some magic beans you might be interested in.

Quote by Buz


I'm thinking of marketing pee dye pills. All the colors of the rainbow. People could compare their pee colors at parties. I bet this could be more popular than alcohol enemas.

Quote by DamonX


Hmmm.... I think if you found a way to color cum it might be more interesting. It might give "Rainbow parties" a whole new lease on life.

Quote by DamonX
"vitamins, supplements, or exotic foods that are supposed to have special health benefits?"

I think "supposed to " is the most important part of that sentence.

Unless you are homeless, a drug addict, or have a crazy weird diet, you will not be deficient in any of the essential nutrients.

If you are concerned about nutrition I suggest you pick up a book on basic nutrition and learn the basics instead of spending money on stuff you don't need.

This is a university textbook, and thus will run you about 100 bucks. But it's actual science based information. Not garbage internet propaganda trying to sell you something.

Quote by DamonX
Ok... So you are taking a multi vitamin which already has more vitamin C that any human being would ever need... So why are you taking extra vitamin C on top of that?

I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is a water soluble vitamin. That means it's not stored in your body. If you take more than you need, it's excreted in your urine. So essentially what you are doing is paying 20-30 dollars a month for bright orange colored pee.

Please explain...

In the meantime, I have some magic beans you might be interested in.

Quote by ]Fruit and vegetable consumption among American adults remained relatively stable from 1994 through 2005 (55). For example, average daily fruit intake in persons ≥2 y of age remained the same from 1994–1996 to 1999–2002 (1.6 servings), and average vegetable consumption declined slightly from 3.4 to 3.2 servings/d during the same period (56). Increased intake of vitamin C–containing foods was unlikely to have contributed to the reduced prevalence of vitamin C deficiency during the recent survey.

(...)

In prosperous societies, supplement consumption has a significant effect on body stores and circulating concentrations of vitamin C. In NHANES 1999–2000, 52% of adults reported consumption of supplements in the past month, and 35% of adults were regular users of multivitamins (58). Usage rates in children were similar but lower in adolescents. These recent data show increased usage since the overall 40% usage reported during NHANES III (58) and are likely to explain in part the improved vitamin C status of the US population.

(...)

Adults who were nonusers of vitamin C supplements had a significantly higher prevalence of vitamin C deficiency than did users (Table 6).

Quote by [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5409678/
Vitamin C and Infections]In the interval from 1972 to 1975, five placebo-controlled trials were published that used ≥2 g/day of vitamin C. Those five studies were published after Pauling’s book and therefore they formally tested Pauling’s hypothesis. A meta-analysis by Hemilä (1996) showed that there was very strong evidence from the five studies that colds were shorter or less severe in the vitamin C groups (p = 10−5), and therefore those studies corroborated Pauling’s hypothesis that vitamin C was indeed effective against colds [70].

Quote by ]Given the strong evidence from studies published before 1970 that vitamin C has beneficial effects against the common cold, and from the ≥2 g/day vitamin C studies published between 1972 and 1975 [70], it is puzzling that the interest in vitamin C and the common cold collapsed after 1975 so that few small trials on vitamin C and the common cold have been conducted thereafter (Figure 1).

This sudden loss of interest can be explained by the publication of the three highly important papers in 1975 (Figure 1). These papers are particularly influential because of their authors and the publication forums. Two of the papers were published in JAMA [72,73], and the third paper was published in the American Journal of Medicine [71]. Both of these journals are highly influential medical journals with extensive circulations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers [71,72], who was a highly respected and influential pioneer of RCTs [1,102,103], and the third paper was authored by Paul Meier [73], who was a highly influential statistician, e.g., one of the authors of the widely used Kaplan–Meier method [1,104,105].

Karlowski, Chalmers, et al. (1975) [72] published the results of a RCT in JAMA, in which 6 g/day of vitamin C significantly shortened the duration of colds (Figure 2A). However, these authors claimed that the observed benefit was not caused by the physiological effects of vitamin C, but by the placebo effect. However, the “placebo-effect explanation” was shown afterwards to be erroneous. For example, Karlowski et al. had excluded 42% of common cold episodes from the subgroup analysis that was the basis for their conclusion, without giving any explanation of why so many participants were excluded. The numerous problems of the placebo explanation are detailed in a critique by Hemilä [1,106,107]. Chalmers wrote a response [108], but did not answer the specific issues raised [109].

In the same year (1975), Chalmers published a review of the vitamin C and common cold studies. He pooled the results of seven studies and calculated that vitamin C would shorten colds only by 0.11 (SE 0.24) days [71]. Such a small difference has no clinical importance and the SE indicates that it is simply explained by random variation. However, there were errors in the extraction of data, studies that used very low doses of vitamin C (down to 0.025 g/day) were included, and there were errors in the calculations [1,110]. Pauling had proposed that vitamin C doses should be ≥1 g/day. When Hemilä and Herman (1995) included only those studies that had used ≥1 g/day of vitamin C and extracted data correctly, they calculated that colds were 0.93 (SE 0.22) days shorter, which is over eight times that calculated by Chalmers, and highly significant (p = 0.01) [110].

The third paper was a review published in JAMA by Michael Dykes and Paul Meier (1975). They analyzed selected studies and concluded that there was no convincing evidence that vitamin C has effects on colds [73]. However, they did not calculate the estimates of the effect nor any p-values, and many comments in their analysis were misleading. Pauling wrote a manuscript in which he commented upon the review by Dykes and Meier and submitted it to JAMA. Pauling stated afterwards that his paper was rejected even after he twice made revisions to meet the suggestions of the referees and the manuscript was finally published in a minor journal [111,112]. The rejection of Pauling’s papers was strange since the readers of JAMA were effectively prevented from seeing the other side of an important controversy. There were also other problems that were not pointed out by Pauling; see [1,70].

Although the three papers have serious biases, they have been used singly or in the combinations of two as references in nutritional recommendations, in medical textbooks, in texts on infectious diseases and on nutrition, when the authors claimed that vitamin C had been shown to be ineffective for colds [1] (pp. 21–23, 36–38, 42–45). The American Medical Association, for example, officially stated that “One of the most widely misused vitamins is ascorbic acid. There is no reliable evidence that large doses of ascorbic acid prevent colds or shorten their duration” [113], a statement that was based entirely on Chalmers’s 1975 review.

These three papers are the most manifest explanation for the collapse in the interest in vitamin C and the common cold after 1975, despite the strong evidence that had emerged by that time that ≥2 g/day vitamin C shortens and alleviates colds [70].

Done reading? In short, the few limited (yet highly influential) papers who proclaimed the ineffectiveness of vitamin C were ironically significantly more biased than the ones which they attempted to debunk. Actually, they did quite a bit more than 'attempting' to debunk the merits of vitamin C, since a lot of that crap slipped through and was taught to medical students/professionals for decades. Only today, the truth finally resurfaces and vitamin C is at last considered a lot more objectively.

Let's now address the myth that a high dose of vitamin C isn't utilized by the body and is instantly expelled through urine. Compare the respective effects of a 5g and 20g dose of ascorbic acid on blood plasma:



[url=https://www.livonlabs.com/proof/Dr_Hickey_Clinical_Study_Published.pdf]Source: https://www.livonlabs.com/proof/Dr_Hickey_Clinical_Study_Published.pdf

Quote by ]In summary, we provide novel data demonstrating the spread of vitamin D concentrations in a large group of UK-based athletes tested in the winter months and report that 62% of our cohort could be described as vitamin D deficient. Our preliminary study suggests that 5000 IU per day of vitamin D3 supplementation for 8-weeks was associated with improved musculoskeletal performance as demonstrated through significant increases in vertical jump height, 10 m sprint times and a trend for improved bench press and back squat 1-RM.

Quote by [url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/57da/cfbf71edfbb74b161c744027389bc65a52cf.pdf
Muscular effects of vitamin D in young athletes and non-athletes and in the elderly]Vitamin D affects the diameter and number of type II, or fast twitch, muscle cells, and in particular that of type IIA cells. In severe vitamin D deficiency, proximal myopathy is observed characterized by type IIA cell atrophy. Vitamin D supplementation in young males increases the percentage of type IIA fibers in muscles, causing an increase in muscular high power output. Vitamin D-mediated induction of muscle protein synthesis and myogenesis results in muscles of higher quality and quantity, which is translated into increased muscle strength since there is a linear association between muscle mass and strength. Hypertrophy of type IIB muscle fibers results in enhanced neuromuscular performance. These types of fibers are major determinants of the explosive type of human strength that results in high power output.

Quote by [url=https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/94/2/559/2598360
Vitamin D Status and Muscle Function in Post-Menarchal Adolescent Girls[/url]]We have used a novel outcome measure of JM to investigate how skeletal muscle function in the lower limb is affected by vitamin D and PTH status. Our data demonstrate that in a group of asymptomatic post-menarchal adolescents, serum 25(OH)D was positively related to muscle power, force, velocity, and jump height; PTH had a lesser effect upon muscle parameters. We have also confirmed the observations that there is an interdependence of muscle function (force and power) with anthropometric parameters; in our data this was predominantly weight (13, 17). Therefore, these data suggest that muscle contractility is affected by the girl’s vitamin D status, those with low-serum 25(OH)D concentration generated less power, and so jump height and velocity were lower than those with higher concentrations of 25(OH)D.

Quote by SereneProdigy

Too much to post.

Quote by DamonX
A somehow reasonable response.

Quote by SereneProdigy

Your previous posts neither offended me on a personal level nor challenged my lifestyle in any way, rest assured. However, witnessing a person propagating unsubstantiated absolutes while boasting to be 'the voice of science' kinda fucking irks me, yes.

Quote by SereneProdigy

And please don't wave your diploma in front of me; your textbook didn't particularly impress me, I'm afraid that using the same tactic with a diploma isn't going to fly much higher on my end.

Quote by SereneProdigy

In regard to whether or not I'm only supporting a preconceived opinion, I'll trust your deductive skills to figure that out. If you need a few hints, my 3rd and 4th listed interests on my profile were respectively 'nutrition' and 'science' when I was still displaying that information publicly. You currently can't see any of that yourself."

Quote by SereneProdigy

A lot of what you're expressing now actually substantiates my reasonable approach quite a lot more than it does your immodest original statements. My intake of vitamins might seem quite hefty to the uneducated eye, but the majority of it is in fact pretty damn moderate.

Quote by SereneProdigy


And... that's the problem right there isn't it? Vitamins are not a "good" thing. They are not magic beans. There are things we need. Beyond that those things are either harmful or irrelevant. Wait.. let me guess... you think that if you take lots of B vitamins, you will have super extra energy!!!

Quote by SereneProdigy

Aside from that, the one and only reason why I cited a few studies concerning vitamin C and colds from the 70s is because the staggering majority of studies evaluating a great number of participants were conducted around that era.

Correct. And why are those studies not still being held up as the be all and end all from vitamin C advocates? Because in science, results have to be recreated in various populations to be deemed valid. You can't just cherry-pick some bullshit study from 50 years ago and use that as a basis for nutrient recommendations. Which is why every scientist in the world agrees that excessive vitamin C intake is worthless. If you want to use scientific evidence as an argument you need to look at systematic reviews or meta analysis. Any ridiculous theory has some ancient half-assed study to support it. As the highest level of statistical evidence, we evaluate every study, do a statistical regression analysis and make an informed recommendation based on the findings.

In 50 years, the finding are that... well you know.

I would never suggest that you accept everything I say. I am an expert in a field just like you are an expert in yours. I have a lot of education in nutrition, but it's not my area of expertise. By all means learn all you can if you are interested in the field. The fact that you would discount a university text book, (which is essentially the accumulation of thousands of people's knowledge and a hundred years of study) is a bit disconcerting.

And by the way... if you are really concerned about antioxidants, maybe do some research into the effect of smoking on oxidative effects on the human body. I'm pretty sure that you'll find that smoking cessation has a much more proven track record on anti-oxidation than spending 30 bucks month on orange flavoured pills.

This has been another episode of:

Quote by trinket

A Multivitamin and Vit D, which my general practitioner suggested I take.

Quote by DamonX


Wow. Did your GP get his/her degree from "Cover your own ass University?"

No folate? You must be older than I thought.

You should go back and ask about clozapine, risperidone, and probably some citalopram.