• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Vitamin B12 - how long is it really active in the system?

b12

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Absent

  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:39 PM


This is something that perplexes me. A lot of the sublingual supplements contain 1-5mg, almost 16,000-87,000% more than the daily recommended value, and the injections people get have even more. It is said people who don't get B12 in their diet should take it daily... but sources on the other hand say it can stay in your body for years being stored in the liver. Some sources say B12 also is water soluble and leaves with the urine.

Now, every time I take my sublingual b12 supplement(1000mcg, soon to upgrade to a 5000mcg one I found), I feel a notable boost. A very noticeable boost actually. It lasts for 4-8 hours or so, and lingers till the next day. If I stop taking it the next day, the boost is relatively gone. When I start taking more, the boost comes back.

This doesn't make any sense. If B12 is stored for usage in the body, and I get such an improvement when I take my B12 supplements, shouldn't they lose all effectiveness pretty quickly since it's being stored? Why do I get such obvious boosts when I take the B12? Does anyone have an idea? I also take a B-100 supplement daily, which includes a lot of the other B-Vitamins needed for complete B-12 functioning... but something doesn't add up. Something tells me that while B12 gets stored in the liver, it's retrieval may not be adequate in my system, though I also do not know how this process works.

Edited by Siro, 19 November 2013 - 08:39 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#2 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:04 PM

Well, the answer is probably the same as with the idodine: placebo effect. You seem to be rather susceptible for that ;)

There are two important facts to know about B12: the first is that only a small fraction of an oral dose is actually absorbed. Normally, a limited amount of B12 (1-2 mcg) from each meal gets absorbed by an active transport protein called the intrinsic factor. People who lack this protein develop deficiency over time. This problem can be overcome by taking large doses of B12, because a small fraction, about 1%, of such a dose is absorbed by passive diffusion rather than being taken up by the intrinsic factor. Therefore, if you take a 1mg B12 supplement, only about 10mcg will be absorbed.

Another fact is that B12 is different from any other water soluble vitamin in that it is very efficiently stored within the liver. Sufficient stores of B12 will last for 5 to 7 years. This is why some naive people tell everyone how great they feel ever since they have gone vegan - until their B12 store becomes depleted after 5 years on a vegan diet it they don't supplement. This is when they start to feel sick and tired.

Edited by timar, 19 November 2013 - 10:09 PM.

  • dislike x 5
  • like x 5
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:11 PM

I take the form Methylcobalamin which does not need a intrinsic factor to be absorbed sublingually, as it has the transport built into it. It different from the oral form cyanocobalamin which is in most foods, which requires the intrinsic factor.

It was not a placebo. There is a distinct boost to my concentration that comes from it, as in it becomes much easier to stay settled on what I am focusing on, as well as the depth and richness of my thoughts increases with regard to the natural detail that spawns from them.

Edited by Siro, 19 November 2013 - 10:15 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#4 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:38 PM

I take the form Methylcobalamin which does not need a intrinsic factor to be absorbed sublingually, as it has the transport built into it. It different from the oral form cyanocobalamin which is in most foods, which requires the intrinsic factor.

You got that wrong. Cyanocobalamin is a synthetic form - it does not appear naturally at all. Methylcobalamin is an active form of B12 present in many animal foods. Intestinal absorption by intrinsic factor is independend of the form of B12. Sublingual supplements are better absorbed because passive diffusion is enhanced when it works on the oral mucose besides the small intestine.

It was not a placebo. There is a distinct boost to my concentration that comes from it, as in it becomes much easier to stay settled on what I am focusing on, as well as the depth and richness of my thoughts increases with regard to the natural detail that spawns from them.

Whatever...
  • dislike x 4
  • like x 3
  • Unfriendly x 1

#5 TheKidInside

  • Guest
  • 135 posts
  • 35
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:54 AM

I take the form Methylcobalamin which does not need a intrinsic factor to be absorbed sublingually, as it has the transport built into it. It different from the oral form cyanocobalamin which is in most foods, which requires the intrinsic factor.

You got that wrong. Cyanocobalamin is a synthetic form - it does not appear naturally at all. Methylcobalamin is an active form of B12 present in many animal foods. Intestinal absorption by intrinsic factor is independend of the form of B12. Sublingual supplements are better absorbed because passive diffusion is enhanced when it works on the oral mucose besides the small intestine.

It was not a placebo. There is a distinct boost to my concentration that comes from it, as in it becomes much easier to stay settled on what I am focusing on, as well as the depth and richness of my thoughts increases with regard to the natural detail that spawns from them.

Whatever...


excellent science there, guy.
  • dislike x 6
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#6 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:38 AM

Does anybody know anything about the mechanism in which B12 is retrieved from its storage place in the liver? Perhaps I am getting such a massive boost from B12, not because I am lacking B12, but because whatever mechanism that is supposed to retrieve B12 from the liver in my body isn't working at its maximum potential? If so, does anybody know what this is, or if this chemical transporter/retriever is in supplement form?
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#7 CholinergiX

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Central Europe
  • NO

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:04 PM

I think that methylcobalamin is used immediately in body and it is not stored, but i dont have evidence for this, its just theory.
B12 that you absorb from food and also microorganisms in your intestines make, is stored in liver.

Maybe it has something to do with iodine, I don't know, I also get boost from methylcobalamin but not from cyanocobalamin.

#8 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

I think that methylcobalamin is used immediately in body and it is not stored, but i dont have evidence for this, its just theory.

It's OK to speculate if there is no real evidence speaking against your theory. In this case, however, there is a ton of evidence against it. Of course the body has no way of knowing where the B12 comes from. If you are deficient, most of it is rapidly metabolized, otherwise it will be stored in the liver, or excreted in the urine if the stores are full.

#9 CholinergiX

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Central Europe
  • NO

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:44 PM

I am talking about methyl- and cyano-, it can make a difference. Methylcobalamin can be used, but cyanocobalamin first must be converted in body. Of course if you are deficient, body propably use it immediately if have enough other cofactors for biochemical reactions.

sorry my english

#10 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:53 PM

I believe the natural form of B12 is hydroxocobalamin. Cyanocobalamin needs to be detoxified by the liver to be useful.

Methylcobalamin is connected to the methylation cycle as well, and this may have some bearing on what you're experiencing.

I haven't used straight methylB12 for a long time, and prefer a combo of methylB12 and adenosylB12, when I even use a supplement.
(Oysters/liver are a good source)
  • like x 2

#11 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:26 PM

There are three known, natural occuring cobalamins with B12 activity: hydroxy-, methyl- and adenosylcobalamin, the latter being the coenzyme forms. The synthetic form cyanocobalamin is rapidly converted to hydroxy- and then to methyl- and adenosylcobalamin. "Detoxification" of cyanocobalamine sounds far more serious than it actually is because the amount of cyanide even from large doeses of cyanocobalamin is almost infinitesimal. A single sweet almond has more cyanide in it than 1mg of cyanocobalmin. It's something our body does all the time, on a much larger scale. The cyanide from B12 supplements is but a drop in the ocean of dietary cyanides. If you have a deficiency however, the coenzyme forms are more efficient because they act more rapidly, as they don't have to be activated in the liver.

Edited by timar, 20 November 2013 - 05:30 PM.

  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#12 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

Does anyone have any information about how the body regulates the active B12 in the blood with regard to the B12 stores? If this can be understood/known and manipulated, then perhaps some great breakthroughs can be made with effects gained from B12 supplementation. Ideally when B12 gets in the blood from a supplement form, it may be higher than normal for some time, but is gradually excreted and stored to get the active B12 levels back to normal. If the active B12 level regulator can be modified then those effects could be drawn out for much longer periods of time.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#13 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:12 PM

I don't think you want to do that. Trying to outsmart the body's regulatory mechanisms is usually a pretty bad idea - they have evolved for a good reason. Chronically elevated B12 activity would probably lead to hypermethylation, which is associated with increased risk of cancer and all-cause mortality.

Edited by timar, 20 November 2013 - 08:13 PM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • unsure x 1

#14 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:32 PM

Isn't that kind what we are doing by loading are bodies with so many random supplements that do not occur naturally in nature? Trying to outsmart certain regulatory systems? That would seem to be the case with a lot of the things people put in their body. Whether the supplements act directly on certain neurotransmitter systems, or whether they inhibit an enzyme that breaks down a molecule, causing it to build up to unnatural levels.

#15 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 09:12 PM

Sure, in many cases people try to do that, knowingly or unknowlingly. And there are examples where we actually need to outsmart those systems, which is when they have become defective for one or another reason. For healthy people who are looking to increase their life expectancy, however, it is most probably a bad idea. Successful strategies to increase longevity don't work that way. They work by shifting the homeostasis to another inherent level, not by overthrowing it.
  • like x 1

#16 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -101
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2013 - 06:38 AM

timar, are you a medical student or what ? i like your input on things, even with an error here and there, very informative still.

#17 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 21 November 2013 - 05:12 PM

Timar does indeed seem to be reasonably well educated, and I too am curious about his background, normalizing. I hope he sticks around the thread.

On topic:

Today I got my a bottle of 5000mcg Methyl-B12 lozenges. I will be taking around 2 per day. If there is any significant things I notice compared to compared to when I was taking 2x1000mcg per day, I will post it.

#18 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -101
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2013 - 07:30 AM

b12 junkie. dont start selling your shit to get a dose now....
  • like x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#19 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:14 PM

Ha, no worries. Doesn't give me that much of a rush. More of a mental stability than anything.

Besides. The bulk powder is about $10/kg.... assuming huge 10,000mcg daily doses, that's about 100,000 doses. This isn't something new anyways. B12 has a very low toxicity and many people mega dose it for advantages.
  • like x 1

#20 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -101
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2013 - 03:02 AM

this is very recent study; http://www.medicalda...cer-risk-263123

#21 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 23 November 2013 - 04:11 AM

I found a similar study that goes into more detail.

http://www.webmd.com...ase-cancer-risk

During treatment, blood folate levels among patients who took 0.8 milligrams a day of folic acid plus 0.4 milligrams a day of vitamin B12 increased more than sixfold.

The patients were followed for an average of three years after supplementation ended, during which time 341 patients who took folic acid and B12 (10%) and 288 patients who did not (8.4%) were diagnosed with cancer.


Okay so 3 years following the study, 8% of the people were diagnosed with cancer.

Folic acid and B12 supplementation was associated with a 21% increased risk for cancer, a 38% increased risk for dying from the disease, and an 18% increase in deaths from all causes.


18% increase in death from all causes? All causes? Lol?

This finding was mainly driven by an increase in lung cancer incidence among the folic acid and B12-treated patients.


Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.

Roughly 70% of all the patients in the study were either current or former smokers, including more than 90% of those who developed lung cancer.

Lol. Funny how the whole most of them being smokers bit wasn't mentioned till the end, long after the whole "B12 increases risk of cancer" thing was pushed. Doesn't hurt to actually read these studies.

I don't doubt that any substance can exacerbate cancer to some extent. The problem with a lot of these studies is they will test for something specific with a group that is already at risk. Draw a conclusion of some illness that develops, which would have developed had they been in the study or not, and then try to associate the product being tested with the illness. It isn't scientifically wrong at all, because based on the experiment, the data does correlate. Is it deceiving based on how such particular studies are presented? Most of the time, yes.

What the above study, and similar such studies are saying, is that Vitamin B12 can enhance cancer, assuming it's already developing. I mean, I would hope so! This means the B12 is doing its job, in a way. B12 boosts cellular metabolism. Cancer Cells, while the body is trying to destroy them, thrive by the same mechanisms any other cell thrives. If B12 is enhancing regular cell function, then it would also enhance the function of new cancer cells, which could inevitably cause the cancer to survive past the bodies natural defenses and grow out of control. This doesn't mean the B12 caused the cancer, nor does it mean the cancer couldn't have survived without the B12. I think it's a fair assumption that the B12 has the possibility to enhance the strength of cancer cells. I also think it's a fair assumption that B12 has the possibility to answer the cellular apoptosis needed to destroy cancer cells.

I'll take my chances with B12 ;). Good thing I don't smoke.


It's also important to point out further how the study is flawed:

Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.


They are comparing the cancer occurrence of a group of (70%) smokers with the cancer occurrence rate of an entire population. All I can say, is lol. Bad science is bad science. Then we have news sites that only skim over these reports, and publish them in such a way to sensationalize them just to get views.

What's scary is there are numerous incidences like this in the science community, many of which leave out many details needed to see the legitimacy of the study.


Some other views of the study(from the body of the page):

The real headline of this study should be that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer -- the study found that a total of 94% of the subjects who developed lung cancer were either current or former smokers,


In the U.S., mandatory folic acid fortification of flour and grains has been in effect for just over a decade, and fortification has succeeded in dramatically lowering the incidence of neural tube birth defects.
Shao says the fact that lung cancer rates have also dropped during this time in both men and women suggest folic acid and B12 do not promote lung cancer.

Bettina F. Drake, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, says it is not likely that fortification has led to an increase in cancers in the U.S. In fact, several studies suggest just the opposite.
"We would expect to see an excess in cancers within a few years after folic acid fortification began, and we have not seen that," she tells WebMD.




Drake says it is possible that folic acid protects against cancer at certain points in life and promotes the growth of cancers at other times.


Edited by Siro, 23 November 2013 - 04:28 AM.


#22 finalgates

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:greece

Posted 25 November 2013 - 08:36 AM

what brand you used at 1mg?and how much time under tongue?

#23 Absent

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 56
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:50 PM

The brand was called WonderLabs. I don't know how long under the tongue, but its supposed to be kept there until it is totally dissolved. Around 10-15 minutes or so.
  • like x 1

#24 finalgates

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:greece

Posted 25 November 2013 - 01:14 PM

ok thanks man.i reccomend try adenosylb12 too.the other active b12.increases atp.

#25 Joshua White

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 July 2014 - 01:10 PM

In supplements, B12 is not bound to protein, and therefore does not need digestive enzymes or stomach acid to be detached from a protein. Stomach acid is needed to dissolve some B12 tablets, especially if not chewed. When taken in large enough doses, unbound B12 can overcome intrinsic factor defects because so much can be absorbed through passive diffusion.
 
There is some preliminary evidence that unbound B12, especially when combined with an absorption enhancer, can be directly absorbed through the membranes under the tongue at higher rates than through passive diffusion in the digestive tract. Thus vitamin b12 sublingual is a proven way to administer vitamin b12.

 

vita4life


Edited by Joshua White, 05 July 2014 - 01:11 PM.


#26 rejwan

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • -1

Posted 02 August 2014 - 10:27 PM

Yes. I am posting to an old thread but I have some remarks that can be benefit for all, anyway.  I have been using methylcobalamin for long years, with successful results. Won't get into details here. I found this thread while googling methylcobalamin for some other issue.

 

 

Does anybody know anything about the mechanism in which B12 is retrieved from its storage place in the liver? Perhaps I am getting such a massive boost from B12, not because I am lacking B12, but because whatever mechanism that is supposed to retrieve B12 from the liver in my body isn't working at its maximum potential? If so, does anybody know what this is, or if this chemical transporter/retriever is in supplement form?

 

 

Taking methylcobalamin instead of other forms of B12 is beneficial for another reason: I know there is a disease that prevents B12 converted in the liver from B12 to Methlycobalamin. In this one, B12 serum level is normal in regular blood tests. But actually, the brain and neurological system does not get the form of B12 (Methlycobalamin) it requires and this creates lots of mental and neurological ilnesses.

 

Start you search there on cble disease etc, and further your queries on the net accordingly:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t00100-0048.pdf

 

I think that methylcobalamin is used immediately in body and it is not stored, but i dont have evidence for this, its just theory.
B12 that you absorb from food and also microorganisms in your intestines make, is stored in liver.

Maybe it has something to do with iodine, I don't know, I also get boost from methylcobalamin but not from cyanocobalamin.

 

I never was able to find a source to understand if metyhlcobalamin is stored in the liver or not - however, with a simple test I found it. I took methylcobalamin and after 3 months my b12 level was high. After 9 months lesser but still high. Took no methylcobalamin in between that time so I am sure it is stored. Never took normal B12 before or after(cyano. or hydroxy. or whatever).. So with a personal test, from first hand experience I know and almost sure that Methylcobalamin is stored in the liver. I am not sure how liver still sees it as B12, as they are not exactly the same molecules and it is a co enzyme it is supposed to create - but it stores. I hope this helps everyone since there is no direct source on the net about the Methylcobalamin storage in the liver. (but of course lots on information on normal B12 storage.)

 

Does anyone have any information about how the body regulates the active B12 in the blood with regard to the B12 stores? If this can be understood/known and manipulated, then perhaps some great breakthroughs can be made with effects gained from B12 supplementation. Ideally when B12 gets in the blood from a supplement form, it may be higher than normal for some time, but is gradually excreted and stored to get the active B12 levels back to normal. If the active B12 level regulator can be modified then those effects could be drawn out for much longer periods of time.

 

From the tests I had in the lab, according to my calculations (I have to recheck my files for exact date) half life in my liver is around 7 months. Just calculate the levels in the blood in 2 or 3 test which you take no B12 form (Methyl, Hydroxy, Cyano etc.) in between. Sure it depends on person to person.

 

But tablet blood half life is 6 days - so if you take it daily, it takes 6 days to get the full optimum effect of the dosage (except for liver storage). (correct me if I am wrong). 


Edited by rejwan, 02 August 2014 - 11:13 PM.


#27 Phoenicis

  • Guest
  • 339 posts
  • 77
  • Location:-
  • NO

Posted 02 August 2014 - 11:41 PM

I don't think you want to do that. Trying to outsmart the body's regulatory mechanisms is usually a pretty bad idea - they have evolved for a good reason. Chronically elevated B12 activity would probably lead to hypermethylation, which is associated with increased risk of cancer and all-cause mortality.

 

I was under the impression that hypermethylation in cancer may be due to mutations in demethyltransferases? Are there studies which support that?



#28 Phoenicis

  • Guest
  • 339 posts
  • 77
  • Location:-
  • NO

Posted 02 August 2014 - 11:49 PM

I have heard that folic acid in it's artificial form cannot be utilized by many people because of a relatively common genetic mutation. THat is why finding the biologically active 5-MTHF form is important. How do we know that the folic acid was not responsible for the cancer incidence in that study?

 

Found this post by a user on amazon:

 


As Dr Mark Hyman warns: "Man-made molecules do funny, unpredictable things because they don't work with our normal biochemical pathways. Nature made molecules we have consumed for millennia work with our bodies. Folic acid, the molecule that is used to fortify our food supply, is used in most studies and in most vitamins. It is a man-made, funny looking molecule - a fully oxidized, synthetic chemical compound that seems to cause [more] mischief [than good]. It costs less and is more stable than the nature-made form of this nutrient.

"On the other hand, the nature-made form or forms, called "folates," do not seem to cause problems. This molecule is often found in foliage - dark green leafy vegetables, hence the name folate. This can enter your normal biochemical pathways and gets properly metabolized. The folic acid may not be converted or metabolized by the body, increasing cancer and disease risk. The excess folic acid becomes oxidized and promotes free radical production and genetic instability leading to cancer and other disease.

"The nature-made form of this nutrient - called methyl folate (and there are a few forms of that too) - is what should be in food and vitamin supplements. Many conscientious companies are now using only this form of the nutrient, but it is more expensive. Look at your supplement label: if it says "folic acid" then find another vitamin that has the words "L 5 methyl-tetrahydrofolate" or "5 formyl tetrahydrofolate" on the label."

Note that a genetic mutation called MTHFR gene polymorphism is very common; this prevents the body from being able to use folate/B9 properly. 50% of the population has AT LEAST one gene variant of this type and another 30% has two variants. Unless you specifically ask to be tested for MTHFR, however, your doctor is unlikely to bother checking for this!

Folic acid/folate is water soluble, like the other B vitamins and vitamin C (water soluble should mean it's more difficult to overdose, since the body excretes excess in the urine.

Advanced folic acid (folate) deficiency can cause anemia. Over consumption of folic acid/folate may mask B12 deficiency and anyway folate and B12 should not be taken separately. Folate and B12 MUST be supplemented together as they work closely together. You might want to also take a B-complex supplement as the B vitamins should not really be taken independently of each other. I believe the best B-complex (unfortunately synthetic, however) is Solgar B-100 capsules (do not take tablets as they are heat treated, which destroys some of the vitamins).

→ source (external link)

I found a similar study that goes into more detail.

http://www.webmd.com...ase-cancer-risk
 

During treatment, blood folate levels among patients who took 0.8 milligrams a day of folic acid plus 0.4 milligrams a day of vitamin B12 increased more than sixfold.

The patients were followed for an average of three years after supplementation ended, during which time 341 patients who took folic acid and B12 (10%) and 288 patients who did not (8.4%) were diagnosed with cancer.


Okay so 3 years following the study, 8% of the people were diagnosed with cancer.

Folic acid and B12 supplementation was associated with a 21% increased risk for cancer, a 38% increased risk for dying from the disease, and an 18% increase in deaths from all causes.


18% increase in death from all causes? All causes? Lol?

This finding was mainly driven by an increase in lung cancer incidence among the folic acid and B12-treated patients.


Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.

Roughly 70% of all the patients in the study were either current or former smokers, including more than 90% of those who developed lung cancer.

Lol. Funny how the whole most of them being smokers bit wasn't mentioned till the end, long after the whole "B12 increases risk of cancer" thing was pushed. Doesn't hurt to actually read these studies.

I don't doubt that any substance can exacerbate cancer to some extent. The problem with a lot of these studies is they will test for something specific with a group that is already at risk. Draw a conclusion of some illness that develops, which would have developed had they been in the study or not, and then try to associate the product being tested with the illness. It isn't scientifically wrong at all, because based on the experiment, the data does correlate. Is it deceiving based on how such particular studies are presented? Most of the time, yes.

What the above study, and similar such studies are saying, is that Vitamin B12 can enhance cancer, assuming it's already developing. I mean, I would hope so! This means the B12 is doing its job, in a way. B12 boosts cellular metabolism. Cancer Cells, while the body is trying to destroy them, thrive by the same mechanisms any other cell thrives. If B12 is enhancing regular cell function, then it would also enhance the function of new cancer cells, which could inevitably cause the cancer to survive past the bodies natural defenses and grow out of control. This doesn't mean the B12 caused the cancer, nor does it mean the cancer couldn't have survived without the B12. I think it's a fair assumption that the B12 has the possibility to enhance the strength of cancer cells. I also think it's a fair assumption that B12 has the possibility to answer the cellular apoptosis needed to destroy cancer cells.

I'll take my chances with B12 ;). Good thing I don't smoke.


It's also important to point out further how the study is flawed:

Seventy-five (32%) of the 236 cancer-related deaths among the study participants were due to lung cancer, and the cancer incidence among the study group was 25% higher than in the population of Norway as a whole.


They are comparing the cancer occurrence of a group of (70%) smokers with the cancer occurrence rate of an entire population. All I can say, is lol. Bad science is bad science. Then we have news sites that only skim over these reports, and publish them in such a way to sensationalize them just to get views.

What's scary is there are numerous incidences like this in the science community, many of which leave out many details needed to see the legitimacy of the study.


Some other views of the study(from the body of the page):

The real headline of this study should be that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer -- the study found that a total of 94% of the subjects who developed lung cancer were either current or former smokers,


In the U.S., mandatory folic acid fortification of flour and grains has been in effect for just over a decade, and fortification has succeeded in dramatically lowering the incidence of neural tube birth defects.
Shao says the fact that lung cancer rates have also dropped during this time in both men and women suggest folic acid and B12 do not promote lung cancer.

Bettina F. Drake, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, says it is not likely that fortification has led to an increase in cancers in the U.S. In fact, several studies suggest just the opposite.
"We would expect to see an excess in cancers within a few years after folic acid fortification began, and we have not seen that," she tells WebMD.



Drake says it is possible that folic acid protects against cancer at certain points in life and promotes the growth of cancers at other times.

 

 


Edited by Phoenicis, 02 August 2014 - 11:51 PM.


#29 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 59
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:49 PM

I take the form Methylcobalamin which does not need a intrinsic factor to be absorbed sublingually, as it has the transport built into it. It different from the oral form cyanocobalamin which is in most foods, which requires the intrinsic factor.

It was not a placebo. There is a distinct boost to my concentration that comes from it, as in it becomes much easier to stay settled on what I am focusing on, as well as the depth and richness of my thoughts increases with regard to the natural detail that spawns from them.

 

I don't think it's a placebo either. When I was getting prolotherapy shots (for my knee ligaments) containing methyl-B12 and procaine, for several hours afterwards I'd get a boost and relief from my mold VOC/dust sensitivity muscle tension. I assumed it was the procaine, but when I moved and had to find a new doctor, he just used procaine without B12 and I didn't get the expected relief. The shots with B12 gave me pink urine, so large doses definitely get spilled out.

 

My best guess for mechanism is B12 increases BH4 which is needed for tyrosine hydroxylase to make L-dopa. And that is the rate-limiting step for dopamine production.
 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 Ace Silver

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Ohio
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:10 PM

Everything you will need to know about Vitamin B12. Hope this helps!

 

B12 (Cobalamin)

U.S. RDA 3mcg.

 

Cobalamin is a water-soluble member of the B-complex vitamin family, and it is the only vitamin that contains essential minerals. B12 is essential for the healthy metabolism of nerve tissue, and deficiencies can cause brain damage and neurological disorders. Vitamin B12 was once considered to be a "wonder drug" and was given by injection to rejuvenate. B12 may also reduce the risk of cancer and the severity of allergies, as well as boosting energy levels. Low levels of this vitamin result in anemia.

 

Data File;

Properties:

* Needed for maintenance of the nervous system.

 

*Improves memory and concentration. 

 

*required to utilize fats, carbohydrates, and proteins.

 

*increased energy.

 

*Promotes healthy growth in children.

 

*May protect against cancer.

 

*Protects against allergens and toxic elements.

 

Best sources: liver, beef, pork, eggs, cheese, fish, milk.

 

Dosage:

*Dosages of 5-50mcg. should be adequate for most people; higher dosages should be supervised.

 

*best taken as part of a B-complex supplement.

 

CAUTION--- Although vitamin b12 is not considered to be toxic, it is recommended that you do not take more than 200mcg. Daily unless you are under the supervision of a registered practitioner. 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: b12

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users