41 replies to this topic

[kismet]

Could you link me to your sources for this statement? I take 2/3rds dose of LEF Mix after rather extensive fact checking. I haven't found anything particularly wrong with it.

I'm not sure anymore, but apparently it still contains a lot of the cheap vitamin E that was criticised? It seems the copper zinc:ratio is still too high? Still no vitamin K added? Folic acid, selenium and vitamin C are too high in proportion to the other stuff IIRC; if you reduce the dose enough to get into the safe zone (i.e. 50% of the daily dose or even less) you will dilute everything else and you end up with homeopathic amounts of vitamin d, iodine, etc (that's a similar problem to orthocore but probably slightly worse).

http://www.imminst.o...amp;#entry48132

Edited by kismet, 15 June 2009 - 10:17 PM.

[nameless]

Yeah, I'd basically repeat what Kismet just said. Main issue with the LEF formula I have is that everything is just way too much. And if you take a lower dose, it's too unbalanced to even out.

Main sticking point I have (this is just my opinion) in most of the fancier multis is the vitamin E. LEF mix contains 400IU alpha tocopherol only, which makes it sort of impossible to take a lower dose near RDA levels. The mix also contains 800mcg folic acid (way too much), several 1000%+ of the other Bs, a very unbalanced zinc-copper rato (35 to 1), too much selenium (200mcg) and some questionable extras. There is no way to get that to a safe level, even at partial doses, and have it still be worth taking.

Edited by nameless, 15 June 2009 - 10:59 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Yeah, I'd basically repeat what Kismet just said. Main issue with the LEF formula I have is that everything is just way too much. And if you take a lower dose, it's too unbalanced to even out.

Main sticking point I have (this is just my opinion) in most of the fancier multis is the vitamin E. LEF mix contains 400IU alpha tocopherol only, which makes it sort of impossible to take a lower dose near RDA levels. The mix also contains 800mcg folic acid (way too much), several 1000%+ of the other Bs, a very unbalanced zinc-copper rato (35 to 1), too much selenium (200mcg) and some questionable extras. There is no way to get that to a safe level, even at partial doses, and have it still be worth taking.

There are actually quite a lot of studies that suggest higher vitamin E doses. It was only those recent meta-analyses that got everyone worried about vitamin e... but, according to LEF, those meta-analyses used low dose synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol every other day, instead daily high dose full-spectrum E with natural d-alpha-tocopherol.

This is why they recommend the Super Booster in addition. It contains the other forms of vitamin E. Of course the super booster also comes with another 200mcg of selenium, which approaches the tolerable upper limit of selenium. Though you could just get the gamma tocopherol, etc. separately if that is a concern.

I don't see anything wrong with the vitamin B dosages. Methylcobalmin might be a better form of B12, but obviously that must be taken in lozenge form. Also, there is a lot of niacin, but nobody seems to be able to make up their mind here about it. First it was supposed to nullify the effects of resveratrol, then it was supposed to potentiate the effects.

I'll read up more on folic acid and zinc/copper ratios. I sent a big email to them awhile back, to which they responded to most of these criticisms which I had heard in the past, plus other concerns I had about B6 and antioxidants.

Edward,

Thank you for contacting Life Extension. We have not seen any evidence that half the RDA for vitamin A (2500 IU of retinol acetate) would double the risk of fracture. A recent article discussed how very high levels of this vitamin can increase risk, but half the RDA is hardly very high. If you are getting a lot of selenium from your diet, then taking the Mix and Super Booster could provide more of this nutrient than you need. However, given the depletion of selenium from soils during the last few decades, it is unlikely that you are getting a great deal of selenium from your food.



Just because we say to take one per day does not mean that taking more than this is somehow harmful. We have seen no evidence of problems from a daily vitamin B6 intake of less than 250mg, so once again you are being more cautious than you need to be.



There is no ideal zinc-copper ratio for everyone. Copper requirements are relatively stable, while the amount of zinc needed varies with sex and age. We have seen no evidence that the body down-regulates the production of antioxidants when one consumes antioxidants. If this were true, then supplementation would be useless, and many studies have shown the benefits of consuming antioxidants and foods rich in them. Please call our advisor helpline at (800) 226-2370 and ask to speak with a doctor. They will be able to discuss your concerns in greater detail.

Edited by progressive, 16 June 2009 - 04:43 AM.

[Dmitri]

nameless, actually people not taking any multivitamin might be better off than everyone else; at least if they use CRON-o-meter. I don't get this bizarre hype surrounding multivitamins. Minerals and vitamins? You can get all of them from diet if you are eating ad lib. If you still have deficiencies, fix your deficiencies. If you want pharmacological effects, use pharmacological doses and not a multivitamin! (b1, b6, b12, k2, D3, calcium, magnesium -- the doses found in multis are way too low [or in some other cases dangerously high])
LEF mix is a pretty bad formula to the best of my knowledge. I don't know of any good multi vitamins other than very low dose AOR orthocore (and I'm not even completely sure about that, as I don't know the rationale for all of the things they put in this multi) and I still recommend CRON-o-meter & fixing deficiencies over orthocore.

I agree, mostly... although when I tried Cron-o-meter I found it really frustrating to get an accurate measurement. Maybe I just eat oddly or I needed a newer version, but it was missing data on lots of things in my diet, so I could only get a rough estimate.

A low dose AOR multi could be looked upon as a good insurance policy, so long as it doesn't cause overdoses. I prefer the little brother version (Multi Basics) as I'm not so sure about the extras they put in Core. Although the Bs in Multi Basics aren't really the optimal forms, so it's not perfect either. Certain things would need to be supplemented separately regardless, (K2/D3 perhaps some minerals).

For the original poster, Ajnast's advice is probably the easiest for you. But if you dislike pills, look into AOR's essential mix (powder), use a partial dose, and get your vitamin D levels checked. If deficient, add a tiny D3 gel (small dose of MK-7 isn't a bad idea either).

I have the same problem, the cron-o-meter seems to offer only estimates or specific brands of foods which I do not use. Anyway, looking over the thread I've decided that I shouldn't buy anymore multis. I haven't found a brand that has the dosages or size I want, besides I eat Kashi's heart to heart waffles and oat cereal which has 100% RDA of most vitamins (as well as green/white tea and grape seed extract) so why take more from a multi?

Edited by Dmitri, 16 June 2009 - 05:04 AM.

[frederickson]

a few points...

1) i stated very clearly i don't take saw palmetto, nor do i recommend it. i simply don't put much stock in what someone found on some random website or ultra-conservative sources, such as the mayo clinic, that are light years behind the current science.

2.) by cutting edge, i mean in tune with the latest research. or even research conducted somewhat recently. just take a look at the mayo clinic's stance on vitamin D supplementation. 200 IU for adults up to 50? 400-600 IU for older adults? this is pathetically, almost criminally, out of date given the state of vitamin D deficiency and the now accepted notion that vitamin D toxicity is extremely uncommon, even at daily doses well over 10,000 IU.

http://www.mayoclini...tamin-d/AN01864

Edited by frederickson, 16 June 2009 - 05:08 AM.

[nameless]

Progressive--

The vitamin E studies are sort of mixed, although that is really a different topic. But by taking such high doses of alpha, you are sort of forced to take high doses of all the Es... which may be good, or bad. But it's way beyond what anyone normally gets from their diet. All the Super Booster does, in my opinion, is boost people into a possible diabetes risk with 400mcg of selenium daily (if taken with mix). It also includes an additional 800mcg of folic acid, adding up to 1.6 grams total if taken with the mix.

And I'm not so sure LEF is the place to ask regarding their formula problems.

Edited by nameless, 16 June 2009 - 05:34 AM.

[Dmitri]

a few points...

1) i stated very clearly i don't take saw palmetto, nor do i recommend it. i simply don't put much stock in what someone found on some random website or ultra-conservative sources, such as the mayo clinic, that are light years beyond the current science.

2.) by cutting edge, i mean in tune with the latest research. or even research conducted somewhat recently. just take a look at the mayo clinic's stance on vitamin D supplementation. 200 IU for adults up to 50? 400-600 IU for older adults? this is pathetically, almost criminally, out of date given the state of vitamin D deficiency and the now accepted notion that vitamin D toxicity is extremely uncommon, even at daily doses well over 10,000 IU.

http://www.mayoclini...tamin-d/AN01864

They do seem to be out of date considering many pediatric doctors have raised the RDA to 400 IU for children. However, I do look at their drug and supplement sections which give a grade to supplements and how they fair with certain conditions and diseases based on the studies they look at.

Here's an example: http://www.mayoclini...ECTION=evidence

[seekonk]

Main sticking point I have (this is just my opinion) in most of the fancier multis is the vitamin E. LEF mix contains 400IU alpha tocopherol only, which makes it sort of impossible to take a lower dose near RDA levels. The mix also contains 800mcg folic acid (way too much), several 1000%+ of the other Bs, a very unbalanced zinc-copper rato (35 to 1), too much selenium (200mcg) and some questionable extras.

That is probably why people might not be that badly off with something like Centrum or One-a Day if that contains RDA-comparable amounts of things like alpha-tocopherol and a balanced Zinc-copper ratio.

[seekonk]

1) i stated very clearly i don't take saw palmetto, nor do i recommend it. i simply don't put much stock in what someone found on some random website or ultra-conservative sources, such as the mayo clinic, that are light years behind the current science.

Your lack of capitalization distracts from your otherwise cogent arguments and makes for hard reading (at least for my stone-age mind ).

This is not a case where conservatism is at issue. For example, the Mayo Clinic gives S.P. an A for benign prostate hypertrophy, which is not conservative at all. In addition, side effects are side effects, and will not suddenly disappear in cutting edge research, no matter how shiny the new labs may be.

In any case, your logic is backward. Where side effects are at issue, prudence dictates assuming the worst, and that the heavier burden of proof falls upon those who claim their absence. Primum non nocere.

Edited by seekonk, 16 June 2009 - 02:59 PM.

[kismet]

Progressive--

The vitamin E studies are sort of mixed, although that is really a different topic.

Consensus as represented by countless meta-analyses from the data we have is: null or slightly harmful at higher doses (i.e. this multi). Whether results are different in otherwise vitamin and nutrient-replete life extensionists? No one knows. Way too risky to base so many things on speculation...

[Sillewater]

the mayo clinic is not even close to being a strong source when it comes to cutting-edge nutritional information.

and by cutting edge, you mean no foundation in science? the mayo clinics website is one of the better resources for the hard truth on most supplements, rather than just the speculations and might's.

I know that their journal is decent (Mayo Clin Proc.), so I respect them somewhat. There are no strong sources as to "cutting-edge" research anyway, it is called cutting edge for a reason. If you read, discuss and understand the recent literature you get your fair share of "cutting-edge" research (of note: the Mayo site discourages use of zinc/lozenges for colds, despite recent and rather convincing [but still preliminary?] evidence in the prestigous Journal of Infectious Diseases -- you can't be up to date on everything all the time).

Kismet, thanks for the input, do you use any supplements? Can you share your list?

I prefer to use what I researched myself and consider very safe. The list is short: vitamin D3 @2000IU (to get to 50ng/ml), K2 at 45mcg (I may increase the dose somewhat in the future). I've also come to realise that getting 2g of IP6/d is essential and that it should be supplemented if your diet lacks grains.
I'm also considering some other supps: pyridoxamine/P5P & skin care products: skinceuticals C E Ferulic & polypodium leucotomos. Other than that a flavonol rich diet, lots of cocoa and green tea. I'm basically re-discovering the stuff some people have known for years (-some of the outdated supplements [i.e. arginine & benfotiamine], if you are new the best thing you can do is read every single post by that guy, you will find a lot of great advice -- he represents the conservative CRON, do-not-kill-yourself-using-supplements-philosophy which I like quite a lot + it's much cheaper than a huge, experimental regimen).

Mhmmm... I think I need a break from posting, I've been too much on the forums in the last weeks. 

Why is IP6 necessary? get rid of iron?

[kismet]

Why is IP6 necessary? get rid of iron?

No, not primarily. CVD & bone health. Possibly cancer prevention. It's a long story which I don't have time to tell, but really worth looking into.