60 replies to this topic

[Bghead8che]

After a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that whole foods supplements are the way to go. By "whole food" I don't mean vitamin fed yeast, food state, or whole food based, but real food supplements such as Spinach, Kale, Barley Grass, etc. and whole herbs/extracts.

I realize the potency is nowhere near synthetic supplements however whole food vitamins are 80-90% absorbable while synthetic vitamins are under 20%, at best. I've read a few articles that state that studies have shown that mulit-vitamins are 1-5% absorbable under ideal conditions! That's a lot of wasted vitamins. Also, every vitamin requires several cofactors to be absorbed and most multis are either missing the cofactors or are nothing more than an educated guess.

I fully realize this is a broad generalization but the risks of synthetic supplements outweigh the benefits IMHO in many cases.

Perhaps the best would be half synthetic, bioavailable vitamins balanced w/ a whole food base?

Any opinions for or against whole food supplements? I know there are a lot of AOR fans on here but I don't see a "natural" substance in site!



I'm curious what your thoughts are.



-Brian

[nameless]

Real food supplements would be ideal, but can a person get a full range of vitamins from spinach, kale, etc. supplements? And what about cost/number of pills? I'd like to take New Chapter's Berry Green, for instance, but it is very expensive. And that's for a normal dose (equivalent to like 1 serving vegetables/daily).

To get approx. FDA levels of daily vitamins, how much would it cost per month?

[VampIyer]

Take with food FTW ?!!?

I'm sure most people take their vits with food. If you look at the regimens, some people have very specific timing on their supplements, and for good reason.

[zoolander]

Bg,

a lot of generalisations with what you have said.

I fully realize this is a broad generalization but the risks of synthetic supplements outweigh the benefits IMHO in many cases

What are these risks that you believe personally outweigh the use of synthetic versus whole food? I'll give you a few of my own personal views below.

Perhaps the best would be half synthetic, bioavailable vitamins balanced w/ a whole food base?

1. Half synthetic is still synthetic. 2. Of course you would use bioavailable vitamins because non-bio available vitamins are useless. Come to think of it there's a whole forum dedicated to non bioavailable vitamins here at the institute. It's called the "Resveratrol" forum. 3. Most of us here use synthetic (be half or three quaters or whatever) bio available vitamins, nutraceuticals and food products with a whole food base. When you say a whole food base I guess you're referring to non-processed food.

Personally I don't care if it's from food or if it's synthetic as longs as the health outcome is positive and functional. I'm primarily interested in the outcome. If compound "x" has been found to activate "y" pathway then does it make a difference if it's from food or if it's synthetic. Please don't give me this so-called "X-factor" in food response because if the "X-factor" was an issue then I wouldn't be taking compound "x" in the first place because the outcome would be zero without the so-called "X/unknown factor"

Unfortunately my life is busy and it's not slowing down soon. I do my best to slow down sometimes but I live a fast paced life. That's my choice. I utilise the information that has come out scientific research to increase my chance of living a healthy and fulfilling life

By the way I'm not going to spell check words such as optimise using a "z' because that's how you yanks spell it. We spell it the right way here in Australia

Edited by zoolander, 04 March 2008 - 10:32 AM.

[zoolander]

Ease up Hudson

;P

[VampIyer]

Generalisations?
Utilise?
Optimise?

AHHHH... *head asplodes*


- If you decide you like the whole-food approach, you could invest in a "greens' powder. I use one anyway, and while I cannot vouch for its effectiveness (because it's rare that I can attribute anything to a specific product), the
"Green Vibrance" product from Vibrant Health seems to be "wholesome," and has met with good reviews from my fam. I usually take some vitamins with it - maybe that's aiding absorption!

[krillin]

I realize the potency is nowhere near synthetic supplements however whole food vitamins are 80-90% absorbable while synthetic vitamins are under 20%, at best. I've read a few articles that state that studies have shown that mulit-vitamins are 1-5% absorbable under ideal conditions!

This is flat out wrong. Read the National Academies Press DRI books free online. Here's an example.

When consumed under fasting conditions, supplements of folic acid are nearly 100 percent bioavailable (Gregory, 1997). [...] From these experimental data the bioavailability of folic acid consumed with food is estimated to be 85 percent. [...] Perhaps the best data on which to base an estimate of the bioavailability of food folate are provided by Sauberlich and coworkers (1987). On the basis of changes in blood folate values, the authors concluded that the bioavailability of food folate was no more than 50 percent that of folic acid.

[zoolander]

Krillin I agree and I didn't mention it because IMO the way this thread was put forward is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if it's viral marketing with more than one person involved. As you can see we have 2 members with less than 10 posts giving advice on what they believe is more suitable. One makes generalisations and the other names a whole food product.

This thread gets the 2 thumbs down from me

[Bghead8che]

Krillin I agree and I didn't mention it because IMO the way this thread was put forward is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if it's viral marketing with more than one person involved. As you can see we have 2 members with less than 10 posts giving advice on what they believe is more suitable. One makes generalisations and the other names a whole food product.

This thread gets the 2 thumbs down from me

Hi Zoolander,

I sell software for a living and I have no interest in the success of whole food vitamins or synthetics. I also don't have control over what the others post or their opinions. My only "intention" is an open discussion on the value of whole food vs. Synthetic vitamins because I am in a need of multi-vitamin. My other thread was "Help me create the best B-Complex Vitamin". In it I ask for opinions on "synthetic" choices. Like I said, I want to start a vitamin regimen but I want to get all the information I can.

Also, to be clear I am not stating facts, merely opinions based on what I have read. If interested I can post the articles I found in my research on whole foods vs vitamins. I don't know which (if any) is superior. I'm here to learn and I will admit the fact that many vitamins are based on tar deritives and industry byproducts has me concerned.

All I ask it that you kindly not accuse me of having an agenda simply because I have a different opinion than yours. Also, if you find out who I am marketing for PLEASE have them send me a check because I have yet to be paid!

Thanks,

-Brian

[Bghead8che]

I realize the potency is nowhere near synthetic supplements however whole food vitamins are 80-90% absorbable while synthetic vitamins are under 20%, at best. I've read a few articles that state that studies have shown that mulit-vitamins are 1-5% absorbable under ideal conditions!

This is flat out wrong. Read the National Academies Press DRI books free online. Here's an example.

When consumed under fasting conditions, supplements of folic acid are nearly 100 percent bioavailable (Gregory, 1997). [...] From these experimental data the bioavailability of folic acid consumed with food is estimated to be 85 percent. [...] Perhaps the best data on which to base an estimate of the bioavailability of food folate are provided by Sauberlich and coworkers (1987). On the basis of changes in blood folate values, the authors concluded that the bioavailability of food folate was no more than 50 percent that of folic acid.

Great resource! Folate supplments are know to be highly absorbable. I skimmed through some of the other B-Vitamins and I did not see a direct food vs supplement comparision. It would be nice to have a side by side table to compare.

-Brian

[Bghead8che]

3. Most of us here use synthetic (be half or three quaters or whatever) bio available vitamins, nutraceuticals and food products with a whole food base. When you say a whole food base I guess you're referring to non-processed food.


-------------------------


That is what I am beginning to think is the best approach because you get the potency of synthetic vitamins AND the cofactors necessary to assimilate the synthetic portion. Take Vitamin A for example, a few years ago most people were taking one or two versions, now must superior supplments have a Vitamin A base containing 4-8 cofactors. I read that there may be over 600 natural Vitamin A cofactors in nature!

-Brian

[Bghead8che]

<<What are these risks that you believe personally outweigh the use of synthetic versus whole food? I'll give you a few of my own personal views below.>>

http://www.imminst.o...ime-t19441.html
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t20691.html
http://www.imminst.o...pps-t20642.html
http://www.imminst.o...isk-t20660.html
http://www.imminst.o...nts-t19878.html
http://www.imminst.o...afe-t17624.html
http://www.imminst.o...P72-t20557.html
http://www.imminst.o...RT1-t20500.html
http://www.imminst.o...rol-t20479.html
http://www.imminst.o...ity-t20446.html
http://www.imminst.o...n-C-t20267.html
http://www.imminst.o...ity-t20190.html
http://www.imminst.o...ted-t20146.html
http
://www.imminst.org/forum/whole-food-vi...tes-t7696.html
http://www.imminst.o...gal-t17841.html
http://www.imminst.o...tes-t18729.html
http://www.imminst.o...nts-t16092.html
http://www.imminst.o...ems-t14215.html
http://www.imminst.o...tes-t18424.html
http://www.imminst.o...nts-t18261.html
http://www.imminst.o...rol-t18212.html
http://www.imminst.o...udy-t15796.html
http://www.imminst.o...ins-t17996.html
http://www.imminst.o...AMD-t17551.html
http://www.imminst.o...nts-t15151.html

I have not to date seen a study stating that whole food supplementation is cause for concern.

[ajnast4r]

I realize the potency is nowhere near synthetic supplements however whole food vitamins are 80-90% absorbable while synthetic vitamins are under 20%, at best. I've read a few articles that state that studies have shown that mulit-vitamins are 1-5% absorbable under ideal conditions!

proof or get out. im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof.

Edited by ajnast4r, 05 March 2008 - 02:50 AM.

[zoolander]

HA!

I like it aj. Perhaps I can use that the next time I'm teaching 3rd years. Proof or get the funk out!

[Bghead8che]

I realize the potency is nowhere near synthetic supplements however whole food vitamins are 80-90% absorbable while synthetic vitamins are under 20%, at best. I've read a few articles that state that studies have shown that mulit-vitamins are 1-5% absorbable under ideal conditions!

proof or get out. im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof.

Nice forum. Run by a few elitists that would rather argue than discuss. I have zero desire to argue so obviously I am in the wrong place.

Edited by Bghead8che, 05 March 2008 - 03:23 AM.

[Bghead8che]

HA!

I like it aj. Perhaps I can use that the next time I'm teaching 3rd years. Proof or get the funk out!

There's plenty of "proof" that Synthetic vitamins "can" do more harm than good. Do a Google search for Sythetic Vitamins and Cancer, or toxicity, or lifespan, etc and you will easily find plenty of studies. It does make you think twice before ingesting coal tar and yeast by-products. "Synthetic Vitamin Isolates" brings up plenty of good reading also. Again, I am having trouble finding a study that shows that food or whole food extracts are harmful.

[niner]

Also, to be clear I am not stating facts, merely opinions based on what I have read. If interested I can post the articles I found in my research on whole foods vs vitamins. I don't know which (if any) is superior. I'm here to learn and I will admit the fact that many vitamins are based on tar deritives and industry byproducts has me concerned.

This "fact" that many vitamins are based on tar derivatives and industry byproducts (toxic waste?) seems a bit dubious. Did it come from someone with a vested interest in promoting "natural" products? I think the best thing for you to do is to eat a good diet so that you don't have a serious need for a multi. (no rickets, scurvy, beri-beri...) If you decide that you do want a multi, a plurality of people posting on the topic here use AOR Ortho Core, often at less than the full dose. I suspect even more people would use it if money were no object. There are some compounds that are just too difficult (if not impossible) to get from foods, so you either use synthetics there or go without.

If you had two bottles of resveratrol, one synthesized in a lab, and the other extracted from a plant, and both were highly purified and were the same isomeric form, then they would behave identically in your body. There is no magic "natural" quality that only the plant derived form would have. They are identical. On the other hand, If you are dealing with an impure extract, then the plant form would have scores of other compounds in it. Some might be good, some would unquestionably be bad. In the case of some compounds, the naturally-sourced version is a single stereoisomer, while cheaper synthetic versions are a mixture of stereoisomers. More expensive synthetic versions can be produced with a single stereoisomer that are essentially identical to the natural product. These are some of the issues that have to be addressed when comparing synthetics to natural forms.

[nameless]

HA!

I like it aj. Perhaps I can use that the next time I'm teaching 3rd years. Proof or get the funk out!

There's plenty of "proof" that Synthetic vitamins "can" do more harm than good. Do a Google search for Sythetic Vitamins and Cancer, or toxicity, or lifespan, etc and you will easily find plenty of studies. It does make you think twice before ingesting coal tar and yeast by-products. "Synthetic Vitamin Isolates" brings up plenty of good reading also. Again, I am having trouble finding a study that shows that food or whole food extracts are harmful.

I admit I am confused as to the somewhat aggressive tone in this thread -- it could be an interesting subject to discuss. And some synthetic vitamins are dangerous in large doses (look at beta carotene, for instance). I wouldn't use a blanket statement that all synthetic vitamins are dangerous, as I don't believe that... not at normal dosing levels.

But regarding 'whole food supplements', is it even possible to take such supplements, while keeping doses relatively normal and without going bankrupt? A person probably would have to take multiple servings of a greens product + specialized food supplements, to get close to RDA levels of most vitamins. And that's not counting some vitamins that probably aren't in existing whole food supplements. So even though a whole food vitamin might be nice, it may be the equivalent of like 10 pills and cost $100/month. Or are there whole food vitamins available at a reasonable price? Only ones I've found are the yeast-based vitamins.

If it costs a fortune, one might as well just go to the grocery store and buy a bunch of vegetables, nuts and fruits, and forget about taking vitamins. Or do what most here seem to do: take a partial dose of a good multi and eat healthy.

[ajnast4r]

Nice forum. Run by a few elitists that would rather argue than discuss. I have zero desire to argue so obviously I am in the wrong place.

there are no elitists here... people just get bothered when you made bolt statements without proof. no one here argues, we debate... and if youre not looking to have you opinions opposed and debate them, then yes... youre in the wrong place.


the truth is that as long as proper chirality is maintained, there is no real difference between a man-made vitamin and one produced in nature... the molecule is *exactly the same* and the body cant tell the difference. the absorbtion and utilization of a vitamin/mineral depends more on what form its being given in, than if its natural or man made.... there are a LOT of examples where the bioavailablity of a man made substance is MUCH higher than the natural substance... certain minerals for example.

its been generally agreed that yes, there are plenty of unknown/known substances in food that we need, have not defined and cant get from a pill.. and that food should be the main source of nutrients... supplements are exactly that, a supplement. a small insurance policy.


this topic really has been beat to death, and if you search around you will find a treasure trove of information on it.

Edited by ajnast4r, 05 March 2008 - 02:32 PM.

[VampIyer]

Krillin I agree and I didn't mention it because IMO the way this thread was put forward is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if it's viral marketing with more than one person involved. As you can see we have 2 members with less than 10 posts giving advice on what they believe is more suitable. One makes generalisations and the other names a whole food product.

This thread gets the 2 thumbs down from me

I feel the need to mention that I use synthetic products just like everyone else here. For now I use Orthcore as my multivitamin (may switch to individual ingredients).

I was merely suggesting a product which I had found to have a good ingredient profile. I don't care if anyone uses it or not (it's also a bit overpriced). I was also kidding that it may be helping absorption...it was only because it is a "food" product, and SOME vitamins are better absorbed with food (a folic acid counterexample was listed, but apparently that's still plenty bioavailable regardless) - I often just use a snack.

Sorry I wasn't clearer...

Edited by VampIyer, 05 March 2008 - 05:12 PM.

[david ellis]

HA!

I like it aj. Perhaps I can use that the next time I'm teaching 3rd years. Proof or get the funk out!

There's plenty of "proof" that Synthetic vitamins "can" do more harm than good. Do a Google search for Sythetic Vitamins and Cancer, or toxicity, or lifespan, etc and you will easily find plenty of studies. It does make you think twice before ingesting coal tar and yeast by-products. "Synthetic Vitamin Isolates" brings up plenty of good reading also. Again, I am having trouble finding a study that shows that food or whole food extracts are harmful.

Bghead8che, most threads here have sources, yours doesn't. This response is a non-response. Moderator, please move this thread to the off-topic area?

[krillin]

proof or get out. im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof.

You reminded me of this awesome book.

You Want Proof? I'll Give You Proof

And some synthetic vitamins are dangerous in large doses (look at beta carotene, for instance).

I think that any form of beta carotene is harmful in excess. The vitamin companies' response to the beta carotene trial failures said that the synthetic was uniquely harmful because it was all-trans, while it occurs naturally as a mixture of cis and trans. "Buy our Betatene! It has the natural mix." But the body seems to efficiently convert cis to trans.

http://www.thorne.co...ext/5/6/530.pdf

A group at Cornell University [PMID: 8694017, abstract below] gave three healthy adults a 1 mg (1666 IU) single dose of 99-percent cis beta-carotene labeled with a radioactive tracer (13C) and found over 95 percent of the cis isomers had been isomerized to trans beta-carotene or transformed into retinol prior to entering the bloodstream. Using calculations the authors admit “may be underestimates” they speculated that 14-52 percent of the cis beta-carotene had been isomerized to the all-trans form.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug;64(2):177-83.
Evidence of cis-trans isomerization of 9-cis-beta-carotene during absorption in humans.
You CS, Parker RS, Goodman KJ, Swanson JE, Corso TN.
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.

Absorption and metabolism of [13C]9-cis-beta-carotene ([13C]9c beta C) was studied in three subjects after a single oral dose. Subjects given 1.0 mg [13C]beta-carotene (mean: 99.4% 9-cis-beta-carotene, 0.6% all-trans-beta-carotene; dose A) had substantial concentrations of [13C]all-trans-beta-carotene ([13C]tr beta C) and [13C]all-trans retinol ([13C]retinol) but very low concentrations of [13C]cis-beta-carotene ([13C]cis beta C) in saponified plasma 5 h after dosing, as determined by HPLC and isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. There was no evidence of appreciable absorption of [13C]9-cis retinol. To determine the proportion of [13C]tr beta C and [13C]retinol derived from [13C]9c beta C, a second set of studies in the same subjects was performed with the same isomeric composition except with 13C labeling only in all-trans-beta-carotene (dose B). The results indicated that > 95% of plasma [13C]tr beta C and [13C]retinol observed after dose A was derived from [13C]9c beta C. The concentrations of [13C]tr beta C observed, in excess of that derived from the trace amounts of [13C]tr beta C in the dose, indicated that a significant proportion of the [13C]9c beta C dose was isomerized to [13C]tr beta C before entering the bloodstream. Although precise quantitative estimates of the extent of isomerization of 9-cis-beta-carotene could not be made, it is apparent that cis-trans isomerization of 9-cis-beta-carotene to all-trans-beta-carotene contributed to the near absence of postprandial plasma 9-cis-beta-carotene after its oral administration in humans. The observation of different ratios of beta-carotene to retinol between the two dosing protocols suggests that isomerization did not occur exclusively before uptake by the intestinal mucosa. These results indicate that isomerization of ingested 9-cis-beta-carotene before its secretion into the bloodstream limits the potential supply of 9-cis retinoids to tissues, and increases the vitamin A value of 9-cis-beta-carotene.

PMID: 8694017

[nameless]

And some synthetic vitamins are dangerous in large doses (look at beta carotene, for instance).

I think that any form of beta carotene is harmful in excess. The vitamin companies' response to the beta carotene trial failures said that the synthetic was uniquely harmful because it was all-trans, while it occurs naturally as a mixture of cis and trans. "Buy our Betatene! It has the natural mix." But the body seems to efficiently convert cis to trans.

Yeah, you are probably right there. I now recall a guinea pig study that showed natural beta carotene was dangerous at high doses too, especially if not supplemented with C + E at the same time.

I guess the burden of proof is on the original poster to give some studies showing synthetic vitamins are dangerous. Perhaps he is basing it off of dosing levels, as high doses of synthetic vitamins can be unhealthy? But as you pointed out, natural vitamins can be dangerous too.
I'd like to see some studies of synthetic forms vs natural forms of vitamins... see if there were any differences health-wise.

But I do agree with him that a 'whole food' supplement, which would include beneficial compounds in the foods not related to the vitamins themselves, would be ideal. One would also get vitamins in doses as they occur naturally. But I don't see it being currently practical. A decent multi sorta does this anyway, although without all the other good stuff in food.

[Bghead8che]

Nice forum. Run by a few elitists that would rather argue than discuss. I have zero desire to argue so obviously I am in the wrong place.

there are no elitists here... people just get bothered when you made bolt statements without proof. no one here argues, we debate... and if youre not looking to have you opinions opposed and debate them, then yes... youre in the wrong place.


the truth is that as long as proper chirality is maintained, there is no real difference between a man-made vitamin and one produced in nature... the molecule is *exactly the same* and the body cant tell the difference. the absorbtion and utilization of a vitamin/mineral depends more on what form its being given in, than if its natural or man made.... there are a LOT of examples where the bioavailablity of a man made substance is MUCH higher than the natural substance... certain minerals for example.

its been generally agreed that yes, there are plenty of unknown/known substances in food that we need, have not defined and cant get from a pill.. and that food should be the main source of nutrients... supplements are exactly that, a supplement. a small insurance policy.


this topic really has been beat to death, and if you search around you will find a treasure trove of information on it.

Maybe I got the wrong impression by the the fact that one of the first few responses was attacking me (and two others) as "viral" marketers and attacking our motives. Talking about backing up statments without facts! The friendly tone was then continued by "im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof." So if I am somewhat "post" shy please forgive me but I am much more game for discussion than attacks.

I would be more than happy to post what I have read but I guess I am missing the point as to why I would considering that sharing opinions is a solicitation for personal attacks (be a few). Honestly I have zero desire to engage in any sort of discussion with a few individuals here but I will be more than happy to post the articles I have come across if others are interested. And for the record I am not stating all that vitamins are bad. As I stated in my first post it is my opinion that whole food supplements are safer, better utilized, and more beneficial.

Here is one of the articles I came across earlier:

"Synthetic vitamins simply cannot measure up to the real thing. As of 1996, over 3,800 different compounds have been identified in foods as having nutritional significance.(5) However, in a laboratory, twenty nutrients are about all that modern science can reproduce and put into a vitamin product."

http://www.helium.co...thetic-vitamins

Please note that the article is the the opinion of the author and the references listed in the article. I make no claims or implied claimes based on the article. The article's author is not my brother, or funded by Merck, and I receive no finacial compensation by posting the article. You may not agree w/ the articles points. If you feel the need to vent please direct the author of the article to your nearest synthetic vitamin.

-Brian

[niner]

Nice forum. Run by a few elitists that would rather argue than discuss. I have zero desire to argue so obviously I am in the wrong place.

there are no elitists here... people just get bothered when you made bolt statements without proof. no one here argues, we debate... and if youre not looking to have you opinions opposed and debate them, then yes... youre in the wrong place.

the truth is that as long as proper chirality is maintained, there is no real difference between a man-made vitamin and one produced in nature... the molecule is *exactly the same* and the body cant tell the difference. the absorbtion and utilization of a vitamin/mineral depends more on what form its being given in, than if its natural or man made.... there are a LOT of examples where the bioavailablity of a man made substance is MUCH higher than the natural substance... certain minerals for example.

its been generally agreed that yes, there are plenty of unknown/known substances in food that we need, have not defined and cant get from a pill.. and that food should be the main source of nutrients... supplements are exactly that, a supplement. a small insurance policy.

this topic really has been beat to death, and if you search around you will find a treasure trove of information on it.

Maybe I got the wrong impression by the the fact that one of the first few responses was attacking me (and two others) as "viral" marketers and attacking our motives. Talking about backing up statments without facts! The friendly tone was then continued by "im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof." So if I am somewhat "post" shy please forgive me but I am much more game for discussion than attacks.

I would be more than happy to post what I have read but I guess I am missing the point as to why I would considering that sharing opinions is a solicitation for personal attacks (be a few). Honestly I have zero desire to engage in any sort of discussion with a few individuals here but I will be more than happy to post the articles I have come across if others are interested. And for the record I am not stating all that vitamins are bad. As I stated in my first post it is my opinion that whole food supplements are safer, better utilized, and more beneficial.

Here is one of the articles I came across earlier:

"Synthetic vitamins simply cannot measure up to the real thing. As of 1996, over 3,800 different compounds have been identified in foods as having nutritional significance.(5) However, in a laboratory, twenty nutrients are about all that modern science can reproduce and put into a vitamin product."

http://www.helium.co...thetic-vitamins

Please note that the article is the the opinion of the author and the references listed in the article. I make no claims or implied claimes based on the article. The article's author is not my brother, or funded by Merck, and I receive no finacial compensation by posting the article. You may not agree w/ the articles points. If you feel the need to vent please direct the author of the article to your nearest synthetic vitamin.

Brian, according to the thread title, you were already convinced of your version of things, and presented some undocumented and rather alarmist facts to that effect. I think that's what people are reacting to. Anyway, the helium article is just saying the same stuff that we are saying, but making it sound like synthetic vitamins never get the stereochemistry or functional form right. That is inaccurate. This forum has little use for opinion pieces. We prefer to make decisions based on solid data. I'm not venting here, I'm just telling you what kinds of things we like to see.

[Bghead8che]

Nice forum. Run by a few elitists that would rather argue than discuss. I have zero desire to argue so obviously I am in the wrong place.

there are no elitists here... people just get bothered when you made bolt statements without proof. no one here argues, we debate... and if youre not looking to have you opinions opposed and debate them, then yes... youre in the wrong place.

the truth is that as long as proper chirality is maintained, there is no real difference between a man-made vitamin and one produced in nature... the molecule is *exactly the same* and the body cant tell the difference. the absorbtion and utilization of a vitamin/mineral depends more on what form its being given in, than if its natural or man made.... there are a LOT of examples where the bioavailablity of a man made substance is MUCH higher than the natural substance... certain minerals for example.

its been generally agreed that yes, there are plenty of unknown/known substances in food that we need, have not defined and cant get from a pill.. and that food should be the main source of nutrients... supplements are exactly that, a supplement. a small insurance policy.

this topic really has been beat to death, and if you search around you will find a treasure trove of information on it.

Maybe I got the wrong impression by the the fact that one of the first few responses was attacking me (and two others) as "viral" marketers and attacking our motives. Talking about backing up statments without facts! The friendly tone was then continued by "im not even gonna bother tearing that statement apart untill you show some proof." So if I am somewhat "post" shy please forgive me but I am much more game for discussion than attacks.

I would be more than happy to post what I have read but I guess I am missing the point as to why I would considering that sharing opinions is a solicitation for personal attacks (be a few). Honestly I have zero desire to engage in any sort of discussion with a few individuals here but I will be more than happy to post the articles I have come across if others are interested. And for the record I am not stating all that vitamins are bad. As I stated in my first post it is my opinion that whole food supplements are safer, better utilized, and more beneficial.

Here is one of the articles I came across earlier:

"Synthetic vitamins simply cannot measure up to the real thing. As of 1996, over 3,800 different compounds have been identified in foods as having nutritional significance.(5) However, in a laboratory, twenty nutrients are about all that modern science can reproduce and put into a vitamin product."

http://www.helium.co...thetic-vitamins

Please note that the article is the the opinion of the author and the references listed in the article. I make no claims or implied claimes based on the article. The article's author is not my brother, or funded by Merck, and I receive no finacial compensation by posting the article. You may not agree w/ the articles points. If you feel the need to vent please direct the author of the article to your nearest synthetic vitamin.

Brian, according to the thread title, you were already convinced of your version of things, and presented some undocumented and rather alarmist facts to that effect. I think that's what people are reacting to. Anyway, the helium article is just saying the same stuff that we are saying, but making it sound like synthetic vitamins never get the stereochemistry or functional form right. That is inaccurate. This forum has little use for opinion pieces. We prefer to make decisions based on solid data. I'm not venting here, I'm just telling you what kinds of things we like to see.

Hi Niner,

LOL! What's a guy to do? I surrender. If I remember correctly the opinion piece was backed up by studies.


------------------------

1. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 16. F.A. Davis Company: Philadelphia,1989, p. 2000.
2. JAMA 2002; 287:3116.
3. Vinson, J.A., Bose P. Comparative Bioavailability to Humans of Ascorbic Acid Alone or in a Citrus Extract. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1998, Vol 38, No 3, p. 601-604.
4. Vinson, J.A., and Hsu. Effect of Vitamin A,E, and a citrus extract on in vitro and in vivo Lipid Peroxidation." Medical Science Research, 1992, 20, 145-146.
5. Duke, James. Handbook of Chemical Constituents of Grasses, Herbs, and other Economical Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 1992

-----------------------

I'll post a few articles and if people want to read them, ignore them, or do otherwise no harm no foul.

-Brian

[Bghead8che]

http://www.munising.com/vitamins.html (full article). Please note I did not add the bold type.

---------------------------

Both the recent Finnish studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the experiments at the University of California, Berkley, California proved that taking synthetic vitamins is worse than starvation. The synthetic vitamins will kill you quicker.

In the Finnish study, there was a statistically significant loss of protection from lung cancer, stroke, and all other forms of death. So beware of so-called "enriched" bread with synthetic chemical vitamins. In reality, these chemicals should not be called vitamins at all. They are not vitamins and they are not food. This is a part of the deception. The majority of vitamins sold are synthetic, causing sickness and death to unsuspecting people who believe that they are health conscious and doing the right thing.

The synthetic vitamin producers and sellers all claim that synthetic vitamins have the same molecular structure as the Natural whole plant, and are therefore the same or at lease have the same effect. They never tell you that the polarity of the synthetic is opposite to the Natural and has the opposite effect. Synthetic vitamins always refract light, the opposite of the Natural Organic vitamin complexes. This suggests that you do not get protection from synthetic vitamins. In fact, the studies above show an actual loss of protection.

Though synthetic vitamins have the same molecular structure, they are a mirror image of the Natural. A MIRROR IMAGE? This suggests that they are identical in every detail. But a mirror image is the exact opposite of the real thing, in this case Natural organic vitamins.

Try to shake hands with yourself in the mirror. You can't do it. Everything is opposite. Bet you thought a mirror image is an exact duplication. To give you some examples of the synthetic as opposed to the real thing: Ascorbic acid, which most people think is Vitamin C, which it is not, is being called into question. In the past synthetic vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene have failed to reduce cancer rates and have even made some cancers worse. Now the latest study of synthetic vitamin C reports that synthetic vitamin C's ability to protect against cancer and heart disease appears to diminish at high doses and the vitamins might even become harmful.

Similar to published reported in Health Alert, the Study found evidence that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) at doses greater than 500 mg both suppresses and promotes oxidation, the very culprit that anti-oxidants are supposed to be fighting. This study showed that the anti-oxidant function and the pro-oxidant function of ascorbic acid, which is synthetic C, cancel themselves out, thus providing no benefit.

The facts are, synthetic anti-oxidants, including so-called vitamin C, in the form of ascorbic acid, are not Vitamins. Let me repeat! They are not Vitamins. In fact, vitamins are living enzyme complexes that naturally produce biochemical reactions in the human body. Synthetic Vitamins are chemicals that produce drug reactions in the body.

If you doubt what we have been saying, try spending a little time with an endocardiograph. This is a highly sensitive machine that records, amplifies and makes a graph of heart sound. As the heart becomes diseased, the sounds become abnormal. The abnormal sounds clearly depict what areas of the heart are malfunctioning and what nutrients are needed to allow the heart to normalize. The heart is the one organ in your body most responsive to nutritional therapy.

For example,
There is a characteristic sound and graph made by a heart that is in fibrillation. This heart needs the "G" portion of the organic Vitamin B complex. Tachycardia has its own characteristic graph and requires organic Vitamin C. Regurgitation of one or more valves has its graph and requires real Vitamin E. Angina has its graph and requires real selenium-rich Vitamin E. And so on.

When the correct organic nutrients are given to the patient while he or she is on the endocardiograph, the heart sound and graph start to normalize within 15 minutes. One thing is certain - take all the synthetic vitamins A, B, C, E, etc., in the world; take them over and over again. They can be the very nutrients your doctor tells you are "just exactly the same as organic, natural, real vitamins". But they are simply mirror-image chemicals and not nutritional complexes. They never reverse the abnormal heart graph whereas real nutrition does it on a regular basis. What more proof is needed that these chemicals are "just exactly not the same as real vitamins". The latest studies show the failure of high dose synthetic vitamins and anti-oxidants. The ones that work are those made from herbs and food that are truly nutritional complexes based around enzyme actions.

[Brainbox]

Scientific method.
Citing sources.