Vitamin A as Retinol
Edited by ajnast4r, 29 October 2009 - 01:04 AM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:54 AM
Edited by ajnast4r, 29 October 2009 - 01:04 AM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:08 AM
Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:59 PM
Edited by nameless, 29 October 2009 - 06:00 PM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:42 PM
Edited by FunkOdyssey, 29 October 2009 - 06:43 PM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:50 PM
Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:51 PM
Safety and parsimony (using the lowest amount which is definitely known or very strongly believed to be benefical or necessary). It's unethical to bet on someone's vitamin D levels for one thing. It's also unethical to bet on a hypothesis (it's not a theory as, say, the influence of vitamin D on CVD or the TOE) and risk the health of people who are unaware of the evidence or lack thereof.The argument against retinol has to do with bone issues/hip fractures, if I remember right. Buf if D levels are normal in most of the people taking the multi, what is the argument against, say, 1000-2000IU of retinol?
Edited by kismet, 29 October 2009 - 06:54 PM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:55 PM
Safety and parsimony (using the lowest amount which is definitely known or very strongly believed to be benefical or necessary). It's unethical to bet on someone's vitamin D levels for one thing. It's also unethical to bet on a hypothesis (it's not a theory as, say, the influence of vitamin D on CVD or the TOE) and risk the health of people who are unaware of the evidence or lack thereof.
Also when there is some doubt whether to go higher or lower with the dose of a component of this supplement, its better to err on the low side, since people can always take more of something separately, but they cannot "take out" any excess.
Edited by nameless, 29 October 2009 - 07:11 PM.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 07:25 PM
Posted 29 October 2009 - 07:31 PM
Also true, although I'm not sure if 1000IU of retinol really throws things that out of whack, since D3 is with the product too. Mentioned the multi-cap thing, in case it was a real concern for someone... as then they did have an option to reduce, even though perhaps it wasn't optimal.Well, but then we'd have something like the orthocore-folic acid dilemma. There's disproportionally much of it, ruining the multi even if you cut the dose.
Posted 29 October 2009 - 10:49 PM
Posted 29 October 2009 - 10:58 PM
If the Weston Price theory is accurate then alot more retinol would be worthwhile. However, this is sort of a fringe idea (even though I subscribe to it), which I think makes it inappropriate as a basis for formulation.
Also when there is some doubt whether to go higher or lower with the dose of a component of this supplement, its better to err on the low side, since people can always take more of something separately, but they cannot "take out" any excess.
wouldn't retinol spare carotenoids from conversion?
Edited by ajnast4r, 29 October 2009 - 11:00 PM.
Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:14 AM
Posted 05 November 2009 - 02:56 PM
Among low-bias trials, use of beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E was associated with 7 percent, 16 percent and 4 percent, respectively, increased risk of mortality, whereas there was no increased mortality risk associated with vitamin C or selenium use.
Posted 05 November 2009 - 03:24 PM
Edited by eternaltraveler, 05 November 2009 - 03:25 PM.
Posted 05 November 2009 - 03:31 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users