• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Vitamin D3 Amount

vitamin d3 vimmortal 2.0

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:24 PM


Vitamin D3. Taking suggestions for IU of vitamin D to be included in Vimmortal 2.0

Last version was 1000 IU

Edited by Mind, 07 February 2012 - 09:39 PM.


#2 Blankspace

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 15
  • Location:®

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:29 AM

Is the D3 going to be in a separate softgel or is it going to be dry powder?

#3 CedarWind

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 05 February 2012 - 10:26 AM

Would it be practical to make the whole formula in a softgel?

#4 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:03 PM

Would it be practical to make the whole formula in a softgel?


See this discussion to further this line of questioning.

#5 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 06 February 2012 - 02:08 AM

Personally, I would like to see it at least doubled (2000iu) and anything up to about 5000iu would be acceptable to me.

In practice, I suspect that 2000iu is probably the limit for most if we are not to scare too many people off this multi although i think there was something somewhere about 4000iu being the new RDA?

Anyone know anything about the other forms (D1, D4 & D5), what they do and why we don't need to supplement them?

#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 01:30 AM

Personally, I would like to see it at least doubled (2000iu) and anything up to about 5000iu would be acceptable to me.

In practice, I suspect that 2000iu is probably the limit for most if we are not to scare too many people off this multi although i think there was something somewhere about 4000iu being the new RDA?


2000 is already too high for me, at least if I was going to take a full dose every day. I think we should try to come to grips with the schizophrenia about whether people should take a full dose of a multi or not. The "rule" that one should never take a full dose of a multi is based on overdosed multis, which this is not. Almost everything in Vimmortal is already at a level that I would take every day; most things are sub-RDA.

4000 isn't the new RDA for D; I think it's the Upper Limit. The RDA is still pretty low.

#7 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:11 AM

4000 isn't the new RDA for D; I think it's the Upper Limit. The RDA is still pretty low.


True, but wikipedia says this:

The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is defined as "the highest average daily intake of a nutrient that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects for nearly all persons in the general population .

Which they get from here:
http://books.nap.edu...=13050&page=403

So I think taking half the upper intake level is more than reasonable.

Are we going to base this multi on one one persons needs?

#8 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:42 PM

So I think taking half the upper intake level is more than reasonable.

Are we going to base this multi on one one persons needs?


It's more the principle of 'do no harm'. The RDA is 600iu for people aged 1-70, 800iu for 71 and up. While this is conservative, evidence continues to accrue that the sky is not the limit for vitamin D levels. The association of higher D levels with prostate cancer concerns me. A couple years ago I would have agreed that 2000iu was good; today I'm glad we went with 1100iu.

#9 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:39 PM

I am with niner on this one.

#10 Alec

  • Guest
  • 88 posts
  • 8
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:10 AM

800iu imo.

#11 hooter

  • Guest
  • 504 posts
  • 172
  • Location:Red Base
  • NO

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:23 PM

get a blood test and figure out, nobodys going to give you an accurate answer

#12 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:21 PM

I'd vote for leaving it where it is. 2000IU will be too much for some people. Although since I assume it's in a dry formulation, perhaps absorption will be less... but still...

The full dose vs partial is worth talking about, although expect this isn't the thread to discuss it in. I don't feel like going through the maze of vimmortal threads here to even find if it's been talked about before, but even at RDA levels, I'm not sure a full dose is the best idea -- we do eat food after all, too. And yeah, it may be safe to take a full dose, but if not needed, we are just throwing money away.

#13 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:17 PM

That is the catch-22 with Vimmortal. As time goes by it seems like less and less members desire a multi-vitamin. The product we create is great. Good rationale. No overdosing. Still it seems there is a growing gulf between what our community desires and what the general public might think is a great multi-vitamin. I think the close-to-100% RDA on most nutrients is a pretty good idea. There is no formulation that will suit everyone. People here are especially neurotic about supplements.

#14 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:19 AM

One thing I would suggest, but that'd be up to Anthony and his website, if trying to reach the general public --

play up the improved forms of vitamins/minerals more. Do something like AOR does, have sections on the site that show links to studies using specific forms, studies showing how synthetic folic acid found in most multis may be harmful, how other forms may be more bioavailable, what doses may be optimal etc.

Simply saying high doses is bad is one thing. But if you also link direct studies showing such, I think it'll have more impact.

Go to AOR and see how their site and info is set up. Then look at the Vimmortal site.
The only info I found on the Vimmortal site in regard to providing specific info is this line:

'We will provide more information to help you understand why the forms we used maybe some of the best on the market for many of the vitamin material we used in our Vimmortal Multivitamin formulation.'


I might also suggest someone check over grammar too, by the way. I'm hardly a grammar expert, but that line needs a lot of work. If I was the general public and saw that phrasing, I'd run away... quickly.


Edited by nameless, 01 March 2012 - 12:27 AM.

  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vitamin d3, vimmortal 2.0

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users