158 replies to this topic

[rwac]

My version of Cron-o-meter measures choline. It's how I found I needed to supplement it.

What version do you have and where would I find the choline ?
I'm using 0.9.7

Edit: FIXED. You can go to Set Nutritional Targets (Ctrl-T) and enable display of biotin and choline, and other vitamins like retinol, carotenes, etc.

Edited by rwac, 15 October 2010 - 08:18 PM.

[chrono]

I don't mean to sound insensitive to your plight (which I believe is a little more unique than you have portrayed), but choline is an essential vitamin-like micronutrient, and so it does belong in the formula IMO.

The half-dozen people I can name off the top of my head may be unique, as I obviously spend a lot of my time discussing these kinds of substances from a more psychological perspective. I use myself merely as an example, for whatever it may be worth. I hope I didn't imply that this would impact a large population; however, I feel that that any number of people excluded by an ingredient selection should prompt a careful examination of the reasoning involved. I'll be perfectly willing to accept that such cases are outliers, and as such are not the 'target audience' of this multi, if there is a compelling reason behind such a high dose.

But I could only find one tiny thread about its essentiality on the entire board (unless there was some discussion in the expert design forum). It seems like the logic must be that it's an essential nutrient, so include the full amount of the highest AI. Considering the care taken in selecting many of the other low dosages, I'm a little surprised at the assumption implicit with this one. If no one else feels that any of my other concerns are valid, I still think this is a pretty basic question: who needs that much choline, in addition to their diet? And a follow-up: were other ingredients and dosages selected according to a similar paradigm?


(That being said, I highly recommend reading the Zeisel & Costa (2009) paper from the above thread; it's a short one. It makes a very good case for the essentiality of choline, and presents a brief review of the relevant evidence and issues.)

Edited by chrono, 15 October 2010 - 08:57 PM.

[niner]

As I pointed out earlier, the Chromium form is listed as niacinate (which is Inositol Hexaniacinate) NOT any form of Chromium. You probably want to fix that too while you are fixing the label.

This is really confusing. The dominant name seems to be chromium nicotinate, but when I look at the structure, I see a Cr(III) ion with three niacin anions coordinated to it. Niacin is 2-carboxy pyridine, while nicotine is a piperidyl pyridine, a cationic structure if it's ionized. What the hell? The term chromium niacinate certainly exists, though it's a minority usage. It makes a lot more sense though. What's the source of the 'nicotinate' nomenclature?

[maxwatt]

My version of Cron-o-meter measures choline. It's how I found I needed to supplement it.

What version do you have and where would I find the choline ?
I'm using 0.9.7

I've been using V0.9.3 still. It has Choline under vitamins. Do you see it?

Choline is carried by most vitamin sellers, and eggs are a good source. Choline calmed me down, more focused, less anxious or depressed once I supplemented.

[rwac]

I've been using V0.9.3 still. It has Choline under vitamins. Do you see it?

Choline is carried by most vitamin sellers, and eggs are a good source. Choline calmed me down, more focused, less anxious or depressed once I supplemented.

Edit: FIXED. You can go to Set Nutritional Targets (Ctrl-T) and enable display of biotin and choline, and other vitamins like retinol, carotenes, etc.

Not sure why it isn't enabled by default.

[tjcbs]

I would like to add my own dissapointment that choline was included, and in such a large dose. Like chrono, I am also sensitive to ach precursors/enhancers, and I experience the same sort of depression he mentions. I don't believe this reaction is uncommon. Because of this, I will not be ordering this.

Also, why are six capsules necessary to achieve the ingredients listed? The individual ingredients don't seem to add up to that much. Is it because of all the lubricants/filler needed to get an even mix?

[renwosing]

Are they enteric coated tabs/pills or capsules?

I would definitely buy a few bottles to try.

[niner]

Are they enteric coated tabs/pills or capsules?

Capsules

[chrono]

Also, why are six capsules necessary to achieve the ingredients listed? The individual ingredients don't seem to add up to that much. Is it because of all the lubricants/filler needed to get an even mix?

It's to allow people to take a smaller dose, and still divide the dosage up over the day.

@rwac: some of the micronutrients in COM are turned off by default because of little or no food data in USDA databases.

Edited by chrono, 16 October 2010 - 07:48 PM.

[pamojja]

Maybe I've been expecting too much..

But for me the perfect multi - for which I would be willing to pay more too - would separate water from fat soluble nutrients put in separate soft-gels.

I checked my 25(OH)D with different D3s. And for me dry preparations take about (or more than double) the dose to stay at the same level.

Also thought this would have been the consensus here:

The polled folks prefers the higher cost of 'packs'?

That is surprising to me, as I thought cost was a big factor.
I suppose I am correct to say that folks will pay a higher price for this multivitamin.

Although in my gut, I don't think this will be the case in the real world... Just my personal opinion.

A

Price is no factor if I get it in the most absorbable/bioavailable forms in one. With this Multi at that price, separate preparations with a partial dose of (and therefore much cheaper) multi is getting closer to this goal at a similar price (for much more efforts though, for which I would be willing to part with my cash ;-). Not for something less than perfect in this respect.

Nevertheless, keep up the good work. It's still young and with your willingness to respond it might mature very soon.

Edited by pamojja, 16 October 2010 - 08:30 PM.

[niner]

Maybe I've been expecting too much..

But for me the perfect multi - for which I would be willing to pay more too - would separate water from fat soluble nutrients put in separate soft-gels.

I checked my 25(OH)D with different D3s. And for me dry preparations take about (or more than double) the dose to stay at the same level.

I was pushing for this, but the minimum quantity required for a run of softgels is insane. It would have made the multi financially impossible. The next best thing, which is actually very good, is to have the fat solubles formulated in lipid-containing granules that can be treated as any other dry powder. I don't know if these were used or not. It would probably be ideal to take the multi with a significant amount of fat or oil, which is not always easy if you are trying to spread your dose throughout the day.

[chrono]

It would probably be ideal to take the multi with a significant amount of fat or oil, which is not always easy if you are trying to spread your dose throughout the day.

What's your opinion of the best way to balance these two factors, if they're mutually exclusive to some extent? Is the benefit of taking it throughout the day going to outweigh the reduced bioavailability of fat solubles?

Using D3 as an example, throwing in another 1-2000IU pill is a pretty negligible expense. But taking bioavailability into account (especially if in dry form), isn't ≤1100 IU a little on the low side, for most?

Edited by chrono, 16 October 2010 - 11:24 PM.

[ajnast4r]

<strong>Automatic message</strong>


This topic has been moved from "<a href='http://www.imminst.org/forum/forum/291-bioscience-health-nutrition/'>Bioscience, Health & Nutrition</a> -> <a href='http://www.imminst.org/forum/forum/6-supplements/'>Supplements</a>" to "<a href='http://www.imminst.org/forum/forum/346-action/'>Action</a> -> <a href='http://www.imminst.org/forum/forum/295-projects-teams/'>Projects & Teams</a> -> <a href='http://www.imminst.org/forum/forum/365-community-supplement-design/'>Community Supplement Design</a>".

not smart.. this NEEDS to be in the supplement section so people can see it.

$55 Retail Price - PASS
Nicinamide instead of Inositol Hexanicotinate - PASS
Pyridoxine (really???) instead of Pyridoxal 5' Phosphate - PASS
B12 is very low - PASS
No Vitamin C coenzymes such as Rose Hips, Citrus Bioflavonoids, etc - PASS
No calcium - PASS
Choline taking up .5 to 1 pill a day - PASS

get a student membership, 25$ per bottle

nicotinic acid is superior to niacinamide & IH

p5p is dephosphorylated in the gut, only small amounts of large doses are absorbed by passive diffusion... aka, no point in including it in a multi. michael made an excellent post on this.

we included many times the RDA of b12... the idea that you need thousands of percent of any B vitamins is a falsehood perpetuated by supplement companies.

vitamin C does not have coenzymes... the bioflavanoids that enhance absorption are readily found in food & inclusion in the multi would be redundant and only have added to the cost.

calcium is large molecule... adding the RDA of calcium would have added another 4 pills, therefor it wasnt included. calcium can easily and cheaply be added on IF needed.

we added the AI of choline, track your choline in cron-o-meter... 20$ says you dont hit target.

Using D3 as an example, throwing in another 1-2000IU pill is a pretty negligible expense. But taking bioavailability into account (especially if in dry form), isn't ≤1100 IU a little on the low side, for most?

no... 1100 is a well studied dose and will put most people into the low-mid range. there is no arbitrarily good amount of vitamin D to ingest. what matters is blood levels... therefor we went with a low dose and allow people to add on what they need.

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 October 2010 - 01:39 AM.

[Spectre]

So I get negative reputations on my last post simply because I didn't agree with the formulation and questioned the inclusion of Choline? Pretty ridiculous in my opinion, I didn't realize you have to agree with everything "suppported" by imminst on these forums just so that you're not labeled an idiot..I think the idea of a imminst multi is great, I just think the ingredients profile and price should be revised to a degree, so that it appeals to a larger audience of consumers.

Edited by Spectre, 17 October 2010 - 04:23 AM.

[ajnast4r]

So I get negative reputations on my last post simply because I didn't agree with the formulation and questioned the inclusion of Choline? Pretty ridiculous in my opinion, I didn't realize you have to agree with everything "suppported" by imminst on these forums just so that you're not labeled an idiot..I think the idea of a imminst multi is great, I just think the ingredients profile and price should be revised to a degree, so that it appeals to a larger audience of consumers.

Hmm..I'm sorry, but I am far from impressed with the labeling, low-doses of vitamins, and a bunch of minerals that you can get for cheap individually at a grocery store..not everyone should be taking 550mg of Choline daily along with Lithium, it's not designed for everyone..this could potentially cause harmful effects in some people, or at least I would think so. The price is very unreasonable in my opinion, even with the discount, $25 is 2.5x more than what I would be paying for Source Naturals Life Force, which was the best multivitamin I've taken (I loved the effects it gave me). $55 as the advertised price is way overboard in my opinion, the average consumer will just gawk at the price and be turned off.

while i didnt neg rep you, what youre saying is not even close to being true...

what you view as low dose is actually scientifically validated dosing.

good luck finding the minerals we used in any grocery store.

550mg of choline is the AI, and 1mg of lithium is the suggested RDA... so yes, everyone should be getting those amounts.

the price, at 25$, is beyond reasonable for the quality of the ingredients youre getting...

source naturals life force is hot garbage. you may have had good effects, but its poorly formulated to say the least.

and its not meant for the average consumer. its meant for the 'connoisseur'.

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 October 2010 - 04:53 AM.

[chrono]

I didn't realize you have to agree with everything "suppported" by imminst on these forums just so that you're not labeled an idiot.

Your post got two downvotes; the thread has been viewed almost 5,000 times. I don't think you need to take it that hard, especially if you're confident that it was a good contribution.

[nameless]

A couple of additional questions/comments:

Moving this thread from the main supplement forum may not be the best idea. Unless you want to hide/kill it, but that would be kinda silly.

Still curious about my lycopene question. I'll assume it's not from lycomato then?

And also wondering what the rationale was behind the MK-7 dosing. It's been ages since we discussed it on the forums (so forget what was even decided back then), but was hoping it'd be around 90mcg or so, perhaps a mix with MK-4 and other menoquinones. But since it's all MK-7, why didn't you use 90mcg instead? Cost issues?

Unlike other vits/minerals, I really doubt most people eat foods containing a whole lot of MK-7. And I'll also assume most plan to use a partial dosing. So at 1/3-1/2 dose, the multi provides a pretty small amount of MK-7 (15-22.5mcg), probably requiring an extra supplement to make up the difference. It's not a big deal, but ideally I was hoping that this multi would cover K2 requirements a little better.

And for Anthony, any chance of perhaps making a small, inexpensive sample size available, during the month or so delay? It could be good for those who have concerns over the choline, or have other issues with it -- they could try it out without risking $25/55 for a full bottle. And I doubt if they'd care if there was an accurate label on a sample.

[pamojja]

I checked my 25(OH)D with different D3s. And for me dry preparations take about (or more than double) the dose to stay at the same level.

I was pushing for this, but the minimum quantity required for a run of softgels is insane. It would have made the multi financially impossible.

I see. So I better stick with separate softgels of D3, K2, A's, tocotrienols and tocopherols taken separately. Though I only tested the difference of dry and oil based D3 - no reason not to believe this wouldn't apply to all other fat soluble, important and partly expensive vitamins to some extent as well.

.. and its not meant for the average consumer. its meant for the 'connoisseur'.

Hmm.. Am I an average consumer if I'm willing to take more efforts, sometimes pay a higher price to get supplements in their best absorbed forms? - I think it's more the other way around.

Using D3 as an example, throwing in another 1-2000IU pill is a pretty negligible expense. But taking bioavailability into account (especially if in dry form), isn't ≤1100 IU a little on the low side, for most?

no... 1100 is a well studied dose and will put most people into the low-mid range. there is no arbitrarily good amount of vitamin D to ingest. what matters is blood levels... therefor we went with a low dose and allow people to add on what they need.

Well. All reports of 'real people' I've read seem to need quite a bid more than 1100 IU for reaching an advantageous blood level. Would be worthwhile making a public poll of how much IUs, dry or in oil, to reach a specific range (don't have the time at the moment).

Personally I need 8000 IU in oil - double!!! in the dry form - D3 to reach the same level. Could there be any good reason to take thousand of IUs, because they're only half absorbed? Other than having to take it to be able to get an uniquely formulated multi?

From my perspective, if it is financially impossible to have the best forms, and most anyway have to supplement additionally for the fat-solubles, it would be better to leave those worse forms of fat-solubles out from the beginning and the price would instantly come down.

On the other hand, a truly 'complete' (as far as possible, given the different needs for D3) Multi, with all fat soluble vitamins in oil seems to me what is really missing on the market.

[RighteousReason]

I checked my 25(OH)D with different D3s. And for me dry preparations take about (or more than double) the dose to stay at the same level.

I was pushing for this, but the minimum quantity required for a run of softgels is insane. It would have made the multi financially impossible.

I see. So I better stick with separate softgels of D3, K2, A's, tocotrienols and tocopherols taken separately. Though I only tested the difference of dry and oil based D3 - no reason not to believe this wouldn't apply to all other fat soluble, important and partly expensive vitamins to some extent as well.

.. and its not meant for the average consumer. its meant for the 'connoisseur'.

Hmm.. Am I an average consumer if I'm willing to take more efforts, sometimes pay a higher price to get supplements in their best absorbed forms? - I think it's more the other way around.

Using D3 as an example, throwing in another 1-2000IU pill is a pretty negligible expense. But taking bioavailability into account (especially if in dry form), isn't ≤1100 IU a little on the low side, for most?

no... 1100 is a well studied dose and will put most people into the low-mid range. there is no arbitrarily good amount of vitamin D to ingest. what matters is blood levels... therefor we went with a low dose and allow people to add on what they need.

Well. All reports of 'real people' I've read seem to need quite a bid more than 1100 IU for reaching an advantageous blood level. Would be worthwhile making a public poll of how much IUs, dry or in oil, to reach a specific range (don't have the time at the moment).

Personally I need 8000 IU in oil - double!!! in the dry form - D3 to reach the same level. Could there be any good reason to take thousand of IUs, because they're only half absorbed? Other than having to take it to be able to get an uniquely formulated multi?

From my perspective, if it is financially impossible to have the best forms, and most anyway have to supplement additionally for the fat-solubles, it would be better to leave those worse forms of fat-solubles out from the beginning and the price would instantly come down.

On the other hand, a truly 'complete' (as far as possible, given the different needs for D3) Multi, with all fat soluble vitamins in oil seems to me what is really missing on the market.

that may be good for something else, but I think the current design is perfect for what it is.

[1kgcoffee]

This looks perfectly decent for the first run of an imminst multi. I'm impressed. Will be ordering when the labeling gets fixed.

[Solarclimax]

Spare me the sales pitch, that's a lot of money for a multi. Especially considering some of the people being charged that price helped to come up with the design.

[sapentia]

Can someone comment on the bioavailability of calcium silicate used in this preparation vs. Biosil. I am considering this as a new multi for my mother who has osteopenia which makes the silicon component an important factor in my decision.

[dosquito]

my 4 bottles arrived today. the label looks cooler in real life. it smells nice and nasty so you know its good.

[FunkOdyssey]

it smells nice and nasty so you know its good.

lol

[Forever21]

whats the advantage over AOR and how do we know if its safer?

[dosquito]

I'm glad to report that so far after taking 2 doses of 3 caps each I dont seem to have the choline sensitivity some do. Everything is going quite chipper right now but it's too early to make any other judgments

[shazam]

Can someone comment on the bioavailability of calcium silicate used in this preparation vs. Biosil. I am considering this as a new multi for my mother who has osteopenia which makes the silicon component an important factor in my decision.

I can't comment on that at all, but if you're trying to help your mother's osteopenia, I hear that strontium supplements, when taken correctly and with sufficient calcium (not at the same time, mind you), can help that condition and osteoporosis significantly. If you'd like more sources confirming this, check several reviews on the doc's best supp on iherb. There may even be a study out there. But the reviews claim some pretty incredible stuff about that. Definately worth looking over for her stack, with proper directions (IE take sufficient calcium, dont take the strontium with food or calcium).

Edited by shazam, 19 October 2010 - 06:53 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Too bad this topic got moved from the supplement forum.

It is kind of lost here.

[sebr.porte]

The link to the sales website works but all I get is a completely blank page with only the header, footer and side ads showing.

[FunkOdyssey]

I've been taking it for a couple days, gave a bottle to my girlfriend too, seems to be good stuff.