Multivitamins

[Tym87]

What multi's, if any, do you all take? I used to take Animal Pak, but I'm not a big fan of the price and was looking around online. Opti-Men looks decent, but then I read that lead was found it in. Anyone use Orange Triad? Should I just stick to Flintstones?

[DocOctagon]

I use Thorne's multi without iron/without copper. I pretty much use Thorne for all my supps now.

[Barkadion]

You don't really need to take multi. The best approach is to do your blood work on the regular basis and supplement elements that you are lacking. You can do some damage otherwise..

Here is very good read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitnes ... efit_from/

[Tym87]

I use Thorne's multi without iron/without copper. I pretty much use Thorne for all my supps now.

Why do you skip the iron and copper?

[DocOctagon]

You don't really need to take multi. The best approach is to do your blood work on the regular basis and supplement elements that you are lacking. You can do some damage otherwise..

Here is very good read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitnes ... efit_from/

Are you kidding me? It's a post by an anonymous Reddit user who picks and chooses studies that cast vitamins and minerals in a bad light. One of the references this overview (?) uses is the quote of another redditor for chrissake'. There are equally as many studies and reports showing the benefits of vitamins and minerals. Here is another link (to a real scientist), an outstanding interview with a biomedical scientist that specializes in nutrition and supplementation. She gives context to the studies that put a negative spin on vitamin and mineral supplementation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0xB4OJdpQ

I don't disagree with you completely btw, some vitamins or minerals like iron can do harm or even cause death if you're not deficient, but like most things there's a middle ground filled with context and layers. "You don't really need to take a multi" followed by a link to a report on Reddit isn't going to cut it. While periodic testing and supplementing deficiencies is ideal, most of us live in the real world and this isn't going to be a realistic (or affordable) option. There's enough information out there to put together a safe and comprehensive vitamin/mineral supp plan without visiting the lab every month. I can't recommend that podcast interview enough for anyone that wants a basic primer in nutritional supplementation, especially if you're confused by conflicting information. Don't blindly put your faith in it of course, but come to your own conclusions.

[Barkadion]

You don't really need to take multi. The best approach is to do your blood work on the regular basis and supplement elements that you are lacking. You can do some damage otherwise..

Here is very good read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitnes ... efit_from/

Are you kidding me? It's a post by an anonymous Reddit user who picks and chooses studies that cast vitamins and minerals in a bad light. One of the references this overview (?) uses is the quote of another redditor for chrissake'. There are equally as many studies and reports showing the benefits of vitamins and minerals. Here is another link (to a real scientist), an outstanding interview with a biomedical scientist that specializes in nutrition and supplementation. She gives context to the studies that put a negative spin on vitamin and mineral supplementation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0xB4OJdpQ

I don't disagree with you completely btw, some vitamins or minerals like iron can do harm or even cause death if you're not deficient, but like most things there's a middle ground filled with context and layers. "You don't really need to take a multi" followed by a link to a report on Reddit isn't going to cut it. While periodic testing and supplementing deficiencies is ideal, most of us live in the real world and this isn't going to be a realistic (or affordable) option. There's enough information out there to put together a safe and comprehensive vitamin/mineral supp plan without visiting the lab every month. I can't recommend that podcast interview enough for anyone that wants a basic primer in nutritional supplementation, especially if you're confused by conflicting information. Don't blindly put your faith in it of course, but come to your own conclusions.

Doc, I'm not kidding Would you trust examine.com? https://examine.com/nutrition/do-i-need-a-multivitamin/ has a long list of references. Seriously. It's been discussed all over the place.

I have stopped taking multi while ago and supplementing what I need. It is B12, Mg now for me. It might change. I usually go into Vit D ride in the middle of the winter. I have been paying good attention to my levels. Running blood test twice a year is good enough for me. There is also some resources/apps that can break your nutrition down to the micro elements. It is easy enough to track. And believe me, it helps.


BTW - good article about Vitamins and Minerals in general. Not on the discussion topic. Just a good read.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-a ... s-minerals

[DocOctagon]

I use Thorne's multi without iron/without copper. I pretty much use Thorne for all my supps now.

Why do you skip the iron and copper?

I should add some context. I take half the suggested daily dose unless I'm Base Building or going through periods of less-than-ideal nutrition coupled with high volume or high frequency training.

The body needs very little copper and my diet gives me enough. I keep my (supplemental) zinc intake at less than 15mg daily (zinc depletes copper rapidly). If I were supplementing with 25+ mgs of Zinc daily I would likely add a little supplemental copper as well, but I don't see myself ever doing that.

Iron can cause serious damage. The body has a hard time excreting any excess (short of blood loss) and build up can lead to all sorts of problems over time, up to an including death. If you eat meat and don't bleed on a regular basis you're most likely getting enough iron. This is one I'd get measured and tested before supplementing, and only supplement under the guidance of a doctor. It's a good one to get tested if you've done a lot of long distance/endurance sport and you're feeling lethargic or anemic.

[DocOctagon]

You don't really need to take multi. The best approach is to do your blood work on the regular basis and supplement elements that you are lacking. You can do some damage otherwise..

Here is very good read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitnes ... efit_from/

Are you kidding me? It's a post by an anonymous Reddit user who picks and chooses studies that cast vitamins and minerals in a bad light. One of the references this overview (?) uses is the quote of another redditor for chrissake'. There are equally as many studies and reports showing the benefits of vitamins and minerals. Here is another link (to a real scientist), an outstanding interview with a biomedical scientist that specializes in nutrition and supplementation. She gives context to the studies that put a negative spin on vitamin and mineral supplementation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0xB4OJdpQ

I don't disagree with you completely btw, some vitamins or minerals like iron can do harm or even cause death if you're not deficient, but like most things there's a middle ground filled with context and layers. "You don't really need to take a multi" followed by a link to a report on Reddit isn't going to cut it. While periodic testing and supplementing deficiencies is ideal, most of us live in the real world and this isn't going to be a realistic (or affordable) option. There's enough information out there to put together a safe and comprehensive vitamin/mineral supp plan without visiting the lab every month. I can't recommend that podcast interview enough for anyone that wants a basic primer in nutritional supplementation, especially if you're confused by conflicting information. Don't blindly put your faith in it of course, but come to your own conclusions.

Doc, I'm not kidding Would you trust examine.com? https://examine.com/nutrition/do-i-need-a-multivitamin/ has a long list of references. Seriously. It's been discussed all over the place.

I have stopped taking multi while ago and supplementing what I need. It is B12, Mg now for me. It might change. I usually go into Vit D ride in the middle of the winter. I have been paying good attention to my levels. Running blood test twice a year is good enough for me. There is also some resources/apps that can break your nutrition down to the micro elements. It is easy enough to track. And believe me, it helps.


BTW - good article about Vitamins and Minerals in general. Not on the discussion topic. Just a good read.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-a ... s-minerals

I think we're ultimately agreeing on most of the same things, but for discussion's sake;

This is Dr. Ronda Patrick. Take a minute and read it, don't skip this:

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/about-dr-rhonda-patrick/

She's a Ph.D. in biomedical science and a cancer researcher among other things. She's one of the biggest proponents of intelligent Vitamin D use and has published peer reviewed studies on said Vitamin D among other things. She was one of the first scientists to link Vitamin D with mood (serotonin), once again-- published.

Who is Examine. Com?

From what I can see they review studies by real scientists and sell products/stacks on their site based on what they review. Not saying their studies are bad or incorrect at all. In fact the studies they pick appear to be well laid out. But they're missing some context which could be used to skew their information in an inaccurate light. Here's another video that illustrates my point, Dr.Patrick, "Do Antioxidants Cause Cancer". This is also a topic that's "discussed all over the place".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgiZufI0oS8

So you have a real published scientist who's worked in the field (I urge you read the bio I posted) with groundbreaking published work vs a group of (?) who review studies and sell product. Underlying context is required, studies in isolation are enormously limiting. If they were perfect then NO conflicting studies would exist, yet conflicting studies are almost the norm (eggs are good, no...eggs are bad etc etc. So you need to dive deeper in order to decide which study paints a more accurate picture, and exercise your critical thinking skills. Much of what Examine and scientists like Rhonda Patrick have to say are going to be the same, but not all of it. When they do part ways, you have to consider the source of the information and decide accordingly.

[Barkadion]

Are you kidding me? It's a post by an anonymous Reddit user who picks and chooses studies that cast vitamins and minerals in a bad light. One of the references this overview (?) uses is the quote of another redditor for chrissake'. There are equally as many studies and reports showing the benefits of vitamins and minerals. Here is another link (to a real scientist), an outstanding interview with a biomedical scientist that specializes in nutrition and supplementation. She gives context to the studies that put a negative spin on vitamin and mineral supplementation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0xB4OJdpQ

I don't disagree with you completely btw, some vitamins or minerals like iron can do harm or even cause death if you're not deficient, but like most things there's a middle ground filled with context and layers. "You don't really need to take a multi" followed by a link to a report on Reddit isn't going to cut it. While periodic testing and supplementing deficiencies is ideal, most of us live in the real world and this isn't going to be a realistic (or affordable) option. There's enough information out there to put together a safe and comprehensive vitamin/mineral supp plan without visiting the lab every month. I can't recommend that podcast interview enough for anyone that wants a basic primer in nutritional supplementation, especially if you're confused by conflicting information. Don't blindly put your faith in it of course, but come to your own conclusions.

Doc, I'm not kidding Would you trust examine.com? https://examine.com/nutrition/do-i-need-a-multivitamin/ has a long list of references. Seriously. It's been discussed all over the place.

I have stopped taking multi while ago and supplementing what I need. It is B12, Mg now for me. It might change. I usually go into Vit D ride in the middle of the winter. I have been paying good attention to my levels. Running blood test twice a year is good enough for me. There is also some resources/apps that can break your nutrition down to the micro elements. It is easy enough to track. And believe me, it helps.


BTW - good article about Vitamins and Minerals in general. Not on the discussion topic. Just a good read.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-a ... s-minerals

I think we're ultimately agreeing on most of the same things, but for discussion's sake;

This is Dr. Ronda Patrick. Take a minute and read it, don't skip this:

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/about-dr-rhonda-patrick/

She's a Ph.D. in biomedical science and a cancer researcher among other things. She's one of the biggest proponents of intelligent Vitamin D use and has published peer reviewed studies on said Vitamin D among other things. She was one of the first scientists to link Vitamin D with mood (serotonin), once again-- published.

Who is Examine. Com?

From what I can see they review studies by real scientists and sell products/stacks on their site based on what they review. Not saying their studies are bad or incorrect at all. In fact the studies they pick appear to be well laid out. But they're missing some context which could be used to skew their information in an inaccurate light. Here's another video that illustrates my point, Dr.Patrick, "Do Antioxidants Cause Cancer". This is also a topic that's "discussed all over the place".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgiZufI0oS8

So you have a real published scientist who's worked in the field (I urge you read the bio I posted) with groundbreaking published work vs a group of (?) who review studies and sell product. Underlying context is required, studies in isolation are enormously limiting. If they were perfect then NO conflicting studies would exist, yet conflicting studies are almost the norm (eggs are good, no...eggs are bad etc etc. So you need to dive deeper in order to decide which study paints a more accurate picture, and exercise your critical thinking skills. Much of what Examine and scientists like Rhonda Patrick have to say are going to be the same, but not all of it. When they do part ways, you have to consider the source of the information and decide accordingly.

Doc, we are agreeing on the most things, yes. I am not trying to be sarcastic. And thank you for the detailed comment.

Discussion went somewhere else, though. The main point is to take supplementation only if you need that. Period. You might waste your money and health otherwise. And you can spend your saved money to reasonable blood work. I made my choice.

I have nothing against Dr. Patrick. I, actually, have read some reviews on her protein role in mitochondrial metabolism few years ago. It was partly due to my addiction to particular reading and it was also recommended by my scholar friend. It's all good. As many other sources. There is always controversy in the research world. That's the nature of that. More or less. To some degree. But we are not at that degree of discussion here.

As for examine.com.. Take a look on founders and the history of it. I've been following it for a while and I find it trustworthy.

https://examine.com/about/

[Nomad]

Discussion went somewhere else, though. The main point is to take supplementation only if you need that. Period.

If you actually listen to the links Doc provided, this is kind of the point. Dr. Patrick makes a very compelling argument for why taking a daily multi is better than not taking one. It is "needed" if you want to optimize your health and slow the aging process. It doesn't sound like you've actually listened to the podcast.

Here's another study on the benefits of a daily multi:

http://ergo-log.com/multilong.html