6 replies to this topic

[Zans Mihejevs]

These days I aim to get a 100% of my micronutrient RDA's from my CRON diet (lots and lots of vegetables + fortified Soy milk + fortified cereal), though I do have a bunch of "100% RDA" multivitamin pills that were left from the time I lead a sub-par diet. (it's actually "42% to 113% RDA" judging by cron-o-meter). What I'm curious is:

Should I continue taking the supplement just in case (for example some of the food I buy might have different nutrient values than those in the cron-o-meter database and I'm not actually getting enough)

or should I stop taking it in case the extra unnecessary nutrients might be damaging to my body?

[wayside]

These days I aim to get a 100% of my micronutrient RDA's from my CRON diet (lots and lots of vegetables + fortified Soy milk + fortified cereal), though I do have a bunch of "100% RDA" multivitamin pills that were left from the time I lead a sub-par diet. (it's actually "42% to 113% RDA" judging by cron-o-meter). What I'm curious is:

Should I continue taking the supplement just in case (for example some of the food I buy might have different nutrient values than those in the cron-o-meter database and I'm not actually getting enough)

or should I stop taking it in case the extra unnecessary nutrients might be damaging to my body?

If you are only getting RDA amounts of vitamins and minerals, you may not be getting enough of many of them, at least according to Orthomolecular.org.

I would think selectively supplementing the ones you are short on is probably better popping the multi, though, especially if the multi is low quality.

[krillin]

If you are only getting RDA amounts of vitamins and minerals, you may not be getting enough of many of them, at least according to Orthomolecular.org.

Their dosages seem to reflect what's commercially available, not what the literature supports as "optimal". The only one I'd feel comfortable signing my name under would be the 2000 mg of C, and that's based only on a single study showing that that is the requirement for saturating the eye. It's sad to see so many people with advanced degrees pissing away their credibility all at once.

[niner]

If you are only getting RDA amounts of vitamins and minerals, you may not be getting enough of many of them, at least according to Orthomolecular.org.

Their dosages seem to reflect what's commercially available, not what the literature supports as "optimal". The only one I'd feel comfortable signing my name under would be the 2000 mg of C, and that's based only on a single study showing that that is the requirement for saturating the eye. It's sad to see so many people with advanced degrees pissing away their credibility all at once.

You wouldn't sign on to 1500 IU of D3?

[krillin]

You wouldn't sign on to 1500 IU of D3?

I only need 1000, and most people need considerably more than 1500. Decreeing an optimal D dose is as hopeless as decreeing an optimal testosterone dose.

[niner]

You wouldn't sign on to 1500 IU of D3?

I only need 1000, and most people need considerably more than 1500. Decreeing an optimal D dose is as hopeless as decreeing an optimal testosterone dose.

If there are two populations, one that needs 1000 and the other that needs 3000, this is one of those cases where splitting the difference isn't going to work very well. So if you get more than 1000, do you O.D. on D, as it were? Does that mean that you get some sort of observable pathology, or do you just get levels that you aren't comfortable with? My impression is that nearly everyone needs a lot more than 400; if you're trying to set public policy, obviously you wouldn't want to injure anyone, but what exactly do you do for something like D? The options seem to be to have everyone walking around with varying degrees of deficiency, tell everyone to get blood tests, or run the risk of harming some people. None of those are great options.

[krillin]

You wouldn't sign on to 1500 IU of D3?

I only need 1000, and most people need considerably more than 1500. Decreeing an optimal D dose is as hopeless as decreeing an optimal testosterone dose.

If there are two populations, one that needs 1000 and the other that needs 3000, this is one of those cases where splitting the difference isn't going to work very well. So if you get more than 1000, do you O.D. on D, as it were? Does that mean that you get some sort of observable pathology, or do you just get levels that you aren't comfortable with? My impression is that nearly everyone needs a lot more than 400; if you're trying to set public policy, obviously you wouldn't want to injure anyone, but what exactly do you do for something like D? The options seem to be to have everyone walking around with varying degrees of deficiency, tell everyone to get blood tests, or run the risk of harming some people. None of those are great options.

I don't know how to extrapolate D dosage in my case. All the papers like to use straight lines, which if applicable 2000 IU would put me in the zone of increased arterial calcification. I'm not inclined to experiment.

I think it's best to keep the RDA low. That way no one sues the government if the RDA is an overdose to them, and the government won't be required to buy supplements for welfare cases. (This is a real concern. The NNFA has been e-mailing me to support S. 770, which would allow food stamps to be used for supplements.) People who care about their health will titrate their dose with blood tests, since it's no more onerous than the ubiquitous CBC test. Those who can't be bothered will die off at the rate they currently do and not worsen the Social Security/Medicare crunch.