Recent Vitamin Study..........

[FinanceDude]

Rich, I am looking for your thoughts on this. Apparently, a lot of multivitamins have copper in them, which has been found to be toxic I have a bunch of Centrum that shows 2mg of copper in every tablet..........which they now say is way too high?? :P :P

Also, I caught a show on PBS featuring Nicolas Perricone. He was talking about cortisol, and he said that the ingredients in COFFEE cause your body to be unable to burn fat, leading to an overproduction of insulin

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Rich, I am looking for your thoughts on this. Apparently, a lot of multivitamins have copper in them, which has been found to be toxic I have a bunch of Centrum that shows 2mg of copper in every tablet..........which they now say is way too high?? :P :P

Also, I caught a show on PBS featuring Nicolas Perricone. He was talking about cortisol, and he said that the ingredients in COFFEE cause your body to be unable to burn fat, leading to an overproduction of insulin

Not to be glib, but water is toxic too in excess. Multivitamins in usual proportions have not been shown to be harmful. Of course, they have not been shown to be helpful either, but that's another issue.

Caffeine is a drug and has predictable physiologic effects, so coffee does stuff to you. In usual quantities is appears to cause no harm in otherwise healthy people.

You will become mad as a hatter if you fret over all ingredients of things you ingest. A balanced diet with low animal fat, lots of fruits and veggies, an occasional cup of coffeee or glass of wine, etc. and sensible selection of minimally processed foods (even organic for selected items) seems to me a sound strategy.

Kind of like diversifying your investments .

P.S. Mad as a hatter: excess mercury in old fashioned hat material led to neurologic illness, hence the expression.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

....

A balanced diet with low animal fat, lots of fruits and veggies, an occasional cup of coffeee or glass of wine, etc. and sensible selection of minimally processed foods (even organic for selected items) seems to me a sound strategy.

Kind of like diversifying your investments .

Thanks Rich. I've done a fair amount of critical reading on the subject, and when you cut through the sales pitch, it always seems to come down to that. Eat a good variety of sensible foods.

It *is* like diversifying your investments. I love to find parallels.

-ERD50

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Chlorophyl is based on copper, which is probably the source in the food. It is in the middle of a pretty strong chelate, so I don't think it is going anywhere soon. If chlorophyl were toxic, we would all be dead after eating spinach.

I wonder about chromium in some supplements. Soluble Cr+6 is carcinogenic. I suspect that the "chromium" in supplements is tied up as tight as the oxide coat on stainless steel and as digestable.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy

I suspect that the "chromium" in supplements is tied up as tight as the oxide coat on stainless steel and as digestable.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/chromium.asp

What affects chromium levels in the body?

Absorption of chromium from the intestinal tract is low, ranging from less than 0.4% to 2.5% of the amount consumed [19-25], and the remainder is excreted in the feces [1,23]. Enhancing the mineral's absorption are vitamin C (found in fruits and vegetables and their juices) and the B vitamin niacin (found in meats, poultry, fish, and grain products) [26]. Absorbed chromium is stored in the liver, spleen, soft tissue, and bone [27].

The body's chromium content may be reduced under several conditions. Diets high in simple sugars (comprising more than 35% of calories) can increase chromium excretion in the urine [13]. Infection, acute exercise, pregnancy and lactation, and stressful states (such as physical trauma) increase chromium losses and can lead to deficiency, especially if chromium intakes are already low [28-29].

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy

Soluble Cr+6 is carcinogenic.

Wasn't that the stuff Erin Brockovich fought against in the movie?

Anyhow, I heard Dr Will Clower on a recent podcast. I have no idea if he is a credible source, but he was against most supplements (folic acid for pregnant women is recc, though).

His thought process, which I have heard before and makes sense to me, is the supplement contains only a few of the ingredients out of a whole spectrum in the food we eat. IIRC, his example was that people say carrots are good for you, carrots contain beta-carotene, so beta-carotene supplements are good for you. But, he says, carrots also contain many other components, and isolating just the beta-carotene may not be beneficial at all.

I've also heard that sometimes your body reacts to one of these chemicals, and that reaction also controls how it reacts with chemicals that normally accompany it in normal food. So when you take a supplement, you *might* cause your body to shut down its processing of those other 'companion' components.

Time for breakfast

-ERD50

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Quote from: Ed_The_Gypsy on Today at 02:06:19 AM
Soluble Cr+6 is carcinogenic.

Wasn't that the stuff Erin Brockovich fought against in the movie?

Never saw the movie. I don't get my science from movies. (I was so desperately disappointed that I couldn't buy the flying sports car that Luke Skywalker had in Star Wars. )

I have been inside cooling towers and am glad they don't use Cr+6 (chromates) anymore. I don't know what it does, but I don't want to find out.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

My bad.

Chlorophyll is based on magnesium, not copper.

Don't eat no copper. No. No.

Good thing I don't do this for a living.

[perinova]

I used to think that multi vitamins where a good insurance against... bad diet or worrying about it. I think it screwed up my system....

I recently changed my mind. I think multi vitamins are a nuisance, create all sorts of problems (including digestive...). I just think why not eat the right stuff from the get-go? No worry about added chemicals. Or the fact that the real potency is really unknown? Or the possible toxicity?

Now if a doctor tells me I have a lack of vitamin X or compund X, that's another story... I will take the one I need.

They sell multis with a million compounds/herbs unknown to most. There is probably only 1ug of each of them if anything.
They sell garlic in a pill ($$$$). Why not eating garlic with pasta (I just did that this week)
Tesy sell licopene in a pill ($$$$). Why not eating tomatoe today?
VitA Apricot, VitB Orange... Yummy...

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by perinova

I recently changed my mind. I think multi vitamins are a nuisance, create all sorts of problems (including digestive...). I just think why not eat the right stuff from the get-go? No worry about added chemicals. Or the fact that the real potency is really unknown? Or the possible toxicity?

Strikes me as a pretty sensible approach. The trick is to reproduce a diet that our bodies have evoled to thrive on: veggies, protein, diverse food groups, low fat balanced by almost continuous exercise. The theory behind multivitamins is that few people accomplish that goal.

Research on the benefits and harms of multivitamins is destined to be ambiguous at best. There are just too many variables to control, the duration required to demonstrate an effect is too long, and compliance is too difficult to monitor realistically.

No answers here, just a cautious approach to supplements and vitamins for most healthy people on a sensible diet.

[Khan]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

Strikes me as a pretty sensible approach. The trick is to reproduce a diet that our bodies have evoled to thrive on: veggies, protein, diverse food groups, low fat balanced by almost continuous exercise. The theory behind multivitamins is that few people accomplish that goal.

Research on the benefits and harms of multivitamins is destined to be ambiguous at best. There are just too many variables to control, the duration required to demonstrate an effect is too long, and compliance is too difficult to monitor realistically.

No answers here, just a cautious approach to supplements and vitamins for most healthy people on a sensible diet.

Question is, what is a sensible diet?

And how many in the USA are on a sensible diet?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

A sensible diet is pretty much exactly what nobody eats.

How many? Four people.

And because I have to do it...


KHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!

[Khan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...irk_scream.jpg

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yep, I have to do that every time I see one of your posts. My wifes starting to think i'm going batty.

[JohnEyles]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

The trick is to reproduce a diet that our bodies have evoled to thrive on ...

Only trouble with that is that evolution doesn't care what happens to us after
we pass the breeding years.

The theory behind multivitamins is that few people accomplish that goal.

And even if they theoretically did, the problem is that food (esp. veggies,
e.g. from CA Central Valley to east coast) is frequently shipped long
distances and loses a good bit of its nutritional value. No to mention
the BS that big agri-business does that puts their profits above all else,
inclduing nutritional value.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Only trouble with that is that evolution doesn't care what happens to us after
we pass the breeding years.

And even if they theoretically did, the problem is that food (esp. veggies,
e.g. from CA Central Valley to east coast) is frequently shipped long
distances and loses a good bit of its nutritional value. No to mention
the BS that big agri-business does that puts their profits above all else,
inclduing nutritional value.

Well.............my sister the food scientist was a big proponent of the frozen veggies, which are often less altered than the fresh stuff, and hence have more nutrition. Other than fresh sweet corn, forzen sweet corn is WAY better than the canned stuff............

[haha]

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Only trouble with that is that evolution doesn't care what happens to us after
we pass the breeding years.

Much research suggests that this is not necessarily true. For example, hunter gatherer groups that have been directly studied are organized in kinship groups. If the mothers can leave children with the grandmothers at least some of the time, they can gather better. And older men can make spearpoints, build huts and do other tasks even after they perhaps could not rundown and kill a large animal.

Not to be overlooked is that humans need to be taught many things, not the least of which is how to parent. Need some elders around for this too.

Ha

[JohnEyles]

Originally Posted by HaHa

Much research suggests that this is not necessarily true. For example, hunter gatherer groups that have been directly studied are organized in kinship groups. If the mothers can leave children with the grandmothers at least some of the time, they can gather better. And older men can make spearpoints, build huts and do other tasks even after they perhaps could not rundown and kill a large animal.

Not to be overlooked is that humans need to be taught many things, not the least of which is how to parent. Need some elders around for this too.

Ha

Ferry intellesting. I guess you're talking about evolution as it applies to societies, as
opposed to individuals. So the societies that eat better foods, and the old ones hang
around longer even after child-bearing years, tend to be more successful. Good point.