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

Photo

Vimmortal Expert Archive Thread

vimmortal 2.0 voting summary expert panel vimmortal

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:08 PM


Here are the voting results and a brief summary of the comments.

Percentage voting in favor is highlighted in color.


B1 100% One comment to have in the the sulbutiamine form.

B2 100% No comments

B3 100% No comments

B5 100% One comment noting potential life extension benefits of B5

B9 100% One comment that it should be in the form of l-methylfolate. Another comment pointing out the very embarrassing typo on version 1.0. Label needs to be perfect for 2.0.

B12 100% One comment wondering if we would be using cyanocobalmin or hydroxycobalmin

Boron 100% No comments

Vitamin K 100% High level of support for K, but a lot of discussion on the ratios of K1, K2, mk-4, mk-7, which is too far out of my knowledge-base to add a summary here.

Molybdenum 100% No comments

Chromium 100% One comment about changing the form of chromium.

Mixed Tocotrienols 95% One vote against. Some discussion about the form which was too detailed to summarize here.

Selenium 94% One vote against but no rationale given.

Vitamin E 93% Only one vote against, but a lot of discussion about what form – which was too detailed to summarize here.

Vitamin C 92% Two votes against. One comment that it takes up too much space. Comments for keeping the amount low around 100 or 150 mg, which is (oddly) higher than version 1.0. One suggestion to add flavonoids along with C.

B6 92% One vote against. One comment wondering about pyritinol form. One comment suggesting to keep all the Bs in the proper ratio.

Silicon 90% One vote against. One commenter would rather get silicon from “horsetail”.

Biotin 90% One vote against but no rationale given.

Zinc 90% Two votes against but no rationale given. Suggested to keep zinc:copper ratio 10:1

Magnesium 87% One comment to drop it from the formulation. Most of the concerns raised were related to how much space magnesium takes up and how much it adds to the price. Otherwise, most agreed that it should be in version 2.0

Iodine 85% One comment to keep the dose “very low”. Most comments suggested to keep it the same as version 1.0 or close to RDA

Vitamin A 82% Main objection to Vitamin A is potential cancer risk

Lycopene 80% Main objection to Lycopene is potential cancer risk.
__________________________________________

Those with a bit less support but still positive

Vitamin D 79% Most opinions and comments were to leave it in the general range (or a little below) of version 1.0. One comment to leave it out. One to raise it to 2,000IU or even 5000IU.

Lithium 73% Votes against Lithium were based exclusively on sensitivity issues. One comment suggested switching to Li-carbonate.
__________________________________________

Voted down, 50% or less support

Lutein 50% Votes against were due to potential cancer risk from Lutein supplementation. One suggestion to keep it ,but reduce the amount.

Choline 36% A couple comments to reduce the amount and change the form, but most people do not want it in version 2.0

Copper 36% Voted down but a couple of suggestions to keep it in a smaller amount for version 2.0, and in a 1:10 ratio to zinc.
__________________________________________

One extra ingredient suggested
PQQ - 2 comments in favor (no poll)

Edited by caliban, 12 June 2013 - 11:51 PM.


#2 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:19 PM

Not as much work to do as version 1.0.

Main sticking point is Vitamin A, retinols, and carotenoids. Voting was in favor of many of the Vitamin A-related ingredients, but I wonder if a lot of people are unaware of the cancer risk or perhaps they do not think the studies are significant enough.

Sentiment is against choline. The only way I could support it, is if it was in a safer/different form.

Sentiment is against copper, but it is one of those ingredients that - to me - would be odd to drop. An essential mineral, but something that most diets get enough. If it was dropped, we should definitely have an explanation on the eventual webpage where it is sold.

Lithium quandary. I like the fact that Vimmortal has lithium. I don't want to buy lithium separately. I was unaware that a small percentage of the population has sensitivity issues. Seems there is a lot positive research for lithium.

Very strong support for E and K but a lot of discussion about the form that should be used. It is too far above my head to make a decision on these.

Edited by Mind, 03 March 2012 - 08:19 PM.


#3 niner

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

Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:38 AM

I like the idea of a milligram of lithium, and really wonder if a) there really are that many people with Li sensitivities, and b) if 1mg is enough to set them off, assuming they exist. Everyone who complained in the Lithium thread had a problem with orotate, but one person pointed out that carbonate was ok for him. The people complaining also took their low dose Li orotate all at once, while it would be split up into multiple doses in Vimmortal.

#4 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:07 AM

I continue to strongly endorse inclusion of lithium. Since the formulation of 1.0, a Japanese study seems to have documented a non-sneezable lower standardized mortality ratio in the higher-Li-water communities. We can't use carbonate, or we'll be busted by FDA; we could use the aspartate, if people are objecting to the orotate, tho' I suspect these people's problems are indeed illusory.

Choline: agreed, drop it -- tho' I suggest in that case that we recommend that people consider a phosphatidylcholine supplement, and renew my plea for Longecity.org to secure safe PC supplements for the membership.

Folic acid as l-methylfolate: Anthony, wasn't this impossible or cost-prohibitative?

Lutein: hm. Well, it's very odd that the lutein-cancer study that was referenced found that "Longer duration of use of individual β-carotene, retinol, and lutein supplements (but not total 10-year average dose) was associated with statistically significantly elevated risk of total lung cancer and histologic cell types" and that "There was little evidence for effect modification by gender or smoking status." And despite what the abstract says about gender, there was no apparent effect in males, tho' that may be just 'cause they sliced the group up too small. Also, a meta-analysis of 7 prospective epidemiological studies found no association between dietary lutein/zeaxanthin and the risk of cancer. Provided that we use natural-source, natural-form lutein (not lutein esters, etc), this may not be an unreasonable comparison to make. OTOH, the lutein-cancer study was lung cancer, and lung cancer is rare, esp. in nonsmokers, and might conceivably not have been picked up in such studies (the lutein-cancer study was case-control).

A really important question is the dose. Per an erratum identified by niner, "The typical dose of lutein in individual supplements at the time the study was conducted was 20 mg, and the typical dose in multivitamins that contained lutein was 0.25 mg.” Anthony: from the label, it looks like all the lutein is from the Betatene, right? IF so, it's going to be very difficult to take it out without removing a lot of other stuff. Also, it's not at all clear from the label how much of the total vitamin A activity is retinol vs. provitamin A carotenoids, or how the latter break down; (a) could you please advise on these points, and (b) would you please put this on the label for 2.0, irrespective of what we decide here?

ANYWAY, to give a maximalist analysis, Vimmortal has a total of 3450 IU of vitamin A activity. If all of that came from Betatene, and if these supplement facts from a rival product are a correct breakdown, then there's only ten micrograms of lutein in the product, not 20 milligrams as in the standalone products in VITAL. Again, Anthony, please provide the real facts on these matters). It seems clear that we're using a way lower dose and, really, if anything, too little, even taking this study into account. For comparison, in this same study, dietary lutein in the high-consumption quartile was 4th quartile 3,372–100,884 mcg/d, and even for the second quartile it was 1,456–2,313 mcg/d. So I don't think we have anything to worry about there: again, if anything, I'd suggest bumping it up to about 3 mg (still way below the 20 mg associated with risk in VITAL).

I'd leave the rest as it is ...

Edited by Michael, 05 March 2012 - 02:10 AM.


#5 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:42 AM

I thought the Lutein in Vimmortal 1.0 was from FloraGlo, not Betatene? The Betatene dose of Lutein is too baby-sized to worry about. Although I am unsure if any carotenoids are needed really, as it's super easy to get from diet.


Also curious where the lycopene is sourced, if included this time.

#6 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,948 posts
  • 1,624
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 March 2012 - 03:36 AM

Some comments:

RDA doses for B vitamins would only be necessary if one's diet were very inadequate. Though it there are multiple pills, one could take fewer of them. 50% of RDA would probably be adequate for most people as insurance. More than that not needed. An exception is B9, folate. This demonstrates why a perfect vitamin for everyone is impossible; besides dietary differences, there are genetic variants. Approximately 50% of western Europeans (and most Americans) do not need methyl-tetrahydrofolate (MTHF) form of the vitamin, but the rest of us have a genetic SNP that makes our enzyme that converts folate to this active form less effective/ Those who are heterozygous need almost twice the RDA as MTHF, and the 10% or so of the population who are homozygous need even more. So do we have three forms of the vitamin, one with 200 to 400 mcg of the vanila folate, another with 600 mcg of MTHFm and a third with 1000 mcg? Or do we compromise with a dose of 800n mcg? And if we do this, is there any harm from this dose to the population who do not carry this aberrant SNP?

Now take Choline. I found the 400 mg dose in Vimmortal twice what I needed, but I do need (according to the Cron-o-meter program) approximately 200 mg a day to supplement to optimal levels. Except on those days when I eat two eggs. But some people are so sensitive to choline they freel overstimulated with any dose. But I do better with it as a supplement. What should we do? Leave it out with the proviso that many people will want to supplement with 200 mg of choline?

Vitamin D3: the counter revolutionists have come out in force, with studies they say show no benefit to supplementing, and press spin suggesting harm. Yet the Canadian government recommends its citizens supplement 1000units a day. Maybe the Canadian version should have 1000 units. I am happy with 1000 units in the Current Vimmortal, but I measure my blood levels and nkow I need 2000 to 4000 units a day, dependin on season and sunlight exposure, to get my levels into what I believe to be a healthy range. So I would need to supplement whether or not on included this dose.
M
Magnesium: most people need extra. My cron-o-meter venture showed I needed about 200 mg extra. If we leave it out of Vimmortal, we should recommend most people need to supplement magnesium.

Vitamin K, and K2. Excess K1 may be harmful, according to some studies, so I would keep the amount at about half RDA on the beliefe most people get at least some greens most of the time, and topping off can be helpful, and is unlikely to boost levels into a harmful range. K2 is somethjing else. MK4 at relatively high doses, up to a gram, seem according to studies to contribute to bone density by stimulating osteocytes. MK7, in much smaller doses, 90 or 100 mcg perhaps, appear to prevent and reverse the deposit of calcium in arteries. Very desirable as one ages. I do not think enough is known to specify optimum doses, and genetic and dietary variability may mean there is no one generic dose. But I think a level of MK7 on the order of 90 mcg might be helpful for most; I haven't researched the negatives. As to MK4, I do not know what would be a good dose to put in the formula? 500 mg? Is there any known harm from such an addition?

Vitamin A? not as beta carotene. Cancer risk from the actual vitamin? It may be eliminated with adequate D3 and vitamin K, and I would like to see 2500 to no moe than 5000 units, but if I see evidence against its inclusion I could change my opinion.

Trace elements such as copper, I think deficiency is unlikely. Borderline zinc deficiencies do occur, its inclusion at somewhat below RDA would probably be helpful, but not in the form of picolinate.

Just my thoughts.

#7 MrSpud

  • Guest
  • 268 posts
  • 65
  • Location:eternity

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:39 AM

For the folate, this company http://www.gnosis-bi...quatrefolic.php is now selling a form of methyltetrahydrofolic acid cheap enough for Swanson to sell at this price http://www.swansonvi...U714/ItemDetail and they claim it is "structurally analogous to the reduced and nutritionally active form of folic acid, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate." Is that one worth considering?

Edited by MrSpud, 07 March 2012 - 05:01 AM.

  • like x 1

#8 MrSpud

  • Guest
  • 268 posts
  • 65
  • Location:eternity

Posted 07 March 2012 - 05:19 AM

As for the lutein discussion, I just looked at the label and the product was supposed to contain both 10mg of lutein from Kemin's Floraglo and also contains an additional small amount of lutein in the Betatene. I personally like Floraglo lutein and there is nothing wrong that I know of with the small amount in Betatene, but I am not a big fan of letein ester raw materials like Xangold. I like Lutein for it;s beneficial effects on the eyes, not for cancer prevention which I think is still somewhat of an unknown for caroteins in general.

I remember when the original CARET studies came out suggesting smokers fared worse with high dose carotenoids, the Henkel people (the company who made Betatene at the time) gave presentations trying say that natural might work better and all that and they also proposed a theory that I don't think has ever been disproven. The theory was something like if you don't have cancer cells growing that the carotenoids should act as a preventative measure, but if you already have small cancer cells growing into small tumors that the tumors would be nourished and protected by the carotenoids and the carotenoids would protect the cancer cells from being attacked by the immune system.

Edited by MrSpud, 07 March 2012 - 05:36 AM.


#9 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

It looks like we have a few clarifications and items to talk about:

1- Just to let ya know... Lutein in Vimmortal comes mainly from Floraglo Lutein (mg based on Floraglo) AND Lutein from the mixed Carotenoids (1%)
2- Drop the choline? Hmm... this one keeps coming up.
3- Keep Lithium orotate... I think this one is a keeper.
4- methyltetrahydrofolic? We are not as big as swanson :) , but if this is acceptable to everyone I will look into it.
5 - The B vitamins per Minds first post. (Include them at same amounts as previous immortal?).. Also, it appears we are dropping B6?
6- drop copper from 24 mcg to 2 mcg
7- Need to discuss to nail down Vitamin K
8- I believe this was the current ration of Vitamin E, maybe this is acceptable.. or something close to this?
vitamin E 30iu A-tocopherol 1.5mg B-tocopherol 125mg G-tocopherol 42mg D-tocopherol

9- The Vitamin A item... do we confirm this as a keeper? Currently its from 150 mcg Retinol and mixed caratenoids (94%.5 from beta-carotene)
10 - Is Lycopene a keeper?


Also, I maybe out for a month... but will look at emails.

A

#10 niner

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

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:56 PM

6- drop copper from 24 mcg to 2 mcg


Copper's currently 500 mcg... You mean B12? 2 seems awfully low.

#11 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:10 PM

Woops,

I read Mind's post incorrectly.
" keep it in a smaller amount for version 2.0, and in a 1:10 ratio to zinc."
Well, smaller than Version 1 (smaller than 500mcg) and in a 1:10 ratio to zinc...

Well that is confusing, because zinc is at 11 mg, while copper is at 500 mcg ... the ratio I think is currently 1:20 ish or so...
I am guessing we keep copper at 500mcg?

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 07 March 2012 - 07:10 PM.


#12 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2012 - 04:26 PM

It looks like we have a few clarifications and items to talk about:

1- Just to let ya know... Lutein in Vimmortal comes mainly from Floraglo Lutein (mg based on Floraglo) AND Lutein from the mixed Carotenoids (1%)


my thoughts on carotenoids are as such:

lutein & lycopene should be entirely dropped.
pro-A carotenoids should either be completely dropped or kept 25% DRI or less, but only if the brand has bioavailability studies. one thing we never totally hashed out was the varying bioavailability depending no prepparation(lipid coating, etc). even the RE's have different values for supplements. I could easily see ingesting a normal dose but absorbing 10x above normal.

2- Drop the choline? Hmm... this one keeps coming up.


I'm for totally dropping choline as well.

3- Keep Lithium orotate... I think this one is a keeper.


agreed. this is a must have imo.

4- methyltetrahydrofolic? We are not as big as swanson :) , but if this is acceptable to everyone I will look into it.



i am very much against using MTHF for 2 reasons: 1st is cost vs benefit. it looks good on paper because it a hot ticket supplement, but we have no real evidence of it being worthwhile or safe. 2nd im very much against bypassing any ratelimiting enzyme system in the body... it better to supply the 'base ingredient' and allow the body to convert as it needs. yes, people may have MTHFR abnormalities, but not everyone does and the people who do will have to deal with this on their own.

5 - The B vitamins per Minds first post. (Include them at same amounts as previous immortal?).. Also, it appears we are dropping B6?


keep all B's at 100% DRI as before, no changes in form. drop b12 to 100% DRI (2.4mcg)

6- drop copper from 24 mcg to 2 mcg


i would be ok with both keeping copper at current levels or totally dropping it.

7- Need to discuss to nail down Vitamin K


i would be ok with totally dropping K1 or cutting it down to 50%. realistically you would have to eat NO green vegetables to need supplemental k1. k2-mk7 at 45mcg.

8- I believe this was the current ration of Vitamin E, maybe this is acceptable.. or something close to this?
vitamin E 30iu A-tocopherol 1.5mg B-tocopherol 125mg G-tocopherol 42mg D-tocopherol


that ratio is acceptable to me, we could even go lower on the non-alpha t's. i think the a-t should be cut down to 100% DRI (22.5iu, 15mg). Ideally I would like to mimic the ratio found in vitamin E dense foods...I'm unsure what this is, I will have to look into it.

9- The Vitamin A item... do we confirm this as a keeper? Currently its from 150 mcg Retinol and mixed caratenoids (94%.5 from beta-carotene)
10 - Is Lycopene a keeper?


retinol should go imo... too small to matter, waste of money imo. the lycopene should go, especially since its non-nutrative.

#13 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:10 AM

A couple of things I wonder about:

Should MK-4 be added? Or should the amount of MK-7 be increased?

I may be in the minority, but I feel the current amount is too low, seeing as a great deal of people should be taking a partial dose of the multi. So let's go hypothetical and say a person takes 1/3rd dose/daily. That's 15mcg of MK-7 daily. Rotterdam was > 30mcg (if I remember right). Even a half dose/daily is below this number.

And yes, some is better than none. But what rationale is there to leaving the dose at 45mcg? I wouldn't consider 90-100mcg to be a particularly dangerous dose, when compared to natto intake. An alternative is to include some MK-4 instead, perhaps?
----

Should the form of magnesium be changed? At 6 caps/daily, the dose is rather large. Could we switch to citrate, malate, etc. (or whatever form is more compact) and get the cap number decreased? Perhaps lower overall cost of product as well then.
----

Would it make sense to not include any folate at all, regardless of form? Those with MTHFR abnormalities will probably need more than supplied in the multi anyway. Those without it are probably fine from diet.
----

I'd drop choline. Not sure about a clean source and a number of people have issues with it.
----

Undecided about lithium, as I'm unsure if those who had complaints were stating actual problems, or it was a placbo effect. One concern I have with lithium is possible drug interactions, such as with ace inhibitors (which I take). The concern may be unwarranted, but there is a listed interaction... albeit the dose of lithium is tiny. But tiny multiplied by several times isn't quite as tiny anymore.
----

Ajnast brings up an interesting point regarding bioavailabilty of carotenoids in supplement form. Does Betatene provide any info there? And what is the reason for dropping lycopene or lutein (at small doses)? Same bioavailability concerns?

I also never found out what form of lycopene was used in the product (although asked a number of times when it first came out). Was lycomato used, or something else? Wouldn't something like lycomato be a better form to use, if lycopene is included at all?

Edited by nameless, 22 March 2012 - 03:10 AM.


#14 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:45 PM

Thanks for all the comments thus far.

Here are the easy consensus points:

1. Choline is OUT.
2. Lithium is IN at the same dose as before.
3. Vitamin D3 is IN at the same dose as before.
4. All Bs from the original are IN, we just have to decide whether to go 50% or 100% DRI. Please vote in this poll.

#15 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:00 PM

i am very much against using MTHF for 2 reasons: 1st is cost vs benefit. it looks good on paper because it a hot ticket supplement, but we have no real evidence of it being worthwhile or safe. 2nd im very much against bypassing any ratelimiting enzyme system in the body... it better to supply the 'base ingredient' and allow the body to convert as it needs.


I'm fine with that, if we therefore continue with folinic acid: by 'the base ingredient,' do you mean folic acid per se? While the question isn't resolved and the studies are not consistent, the metabolism of folic acid is highly unnatural, leaving unmetabolized folate in circulation even at low doses ( here, here, and here), and there's reason to suspect it may cause some cancers, as I believe you know (here and more recently here, here, here, and here), and a more tenuous possibility of an increase in atherosclerosis.

I believe this was the current ration of Vitamin E, maybe this is acceptable.. or something close to this?
30iu A-tocopherol
1.5mg B-tocopherol
125mg G-tocopherol
42mg D-tocopherol


that ratio is acceptable to me, we could even go lower on the non-alpha t's. i think the a-t should be cut down to 100% DRI (22.5iu, 15mg). Ideally I would like to mimic the ratio found in vitamin E dense foods...I'm unsure what this is, I will have to look into it.


First: Anthony, the above numbers don't seem to add up, and also don't seem to comport with the label. Can you please clarify?

I'm with ajnast4r on bringing the IUage down to the RDA, and with mimicing the balance of E vitamers in whole-foods diets. The top quintiles of tocopherol intake in the NIH-AARP study, for instance, were >8.8 mg α-tocopherol and >18.2 mg γ-tocopherol. I would regard this ~1:2 ratio as a ceiling to what one might get in a healthy whole-food diet: it's mostly attributable to N. American's relatively high consumption of soybean oil. An European cohort, by contrast, would have a a 2:1 α:γ ratio, per PMID 15256801. Provisionally, I'd say throw in the standard mixed tocopherol stuff up to the amount required to reach 15 mg α-tocopherol, let the others fall where they may, and see how that actually breaks down with dietary intake. If that's ≤30 mg γ-tocopherol, we're golden.

my thoughts on carotenoids are as such:

lutein & lycopene should be entirely dropped.
pro-A carotenoids should either be completely dropped or kept 25% DRI or less, but only if the brand has bioavailability studies. one thing we never totally hashed out was the varying bioavailability depending no prepparation(lipid coating, etc). even the RE's have different values for supplements. I could easily see ingesting a normal dose but absorbing 10x above normal.


Lutein intake or serum levels have been pretty consistently found associated ith lower risk of ARMD, which has also been demonstrated for supplements in a clinical trial. Lycopene has been found associated with lower risk of various cancers, of which prostate is the most consistently and widely attested. Alpha-carotene has been associated with lower risk of total mortality ... etc.

I've given my reasons, above, for not being alarmed about the negative finding on lutein, and suggest retaining lutein at a lower dose representative of mid-level dietary intake. I also recently gave my reasons for not being alarmed about the negative-looking study on serum lycopene.

I really don't think that the bioavailability question merits the very severe restriction you're proposing here. The purely synthetic forms don't have this much difference, and these are natural forms and in some kind of oleoresin, beadlet, or trituration that is unlikely to have equivalent bioavailability. And people get most of their lycopene from cooked, fat-containg Italian sauces already.

retinol should go imo... too small to matter, waste of money imo. the lycopene should go, especially since its non-nutrative.


Conversion of carotenoids into retinol may be limited, and there may be some advantages to having preformed retinol, if only in the GI. A normal, healthy, non-vegan diet would certainly contain some.

Lycopene is certainly nutritive: I take it you mean it's not an essential nutrient or precursor to same. But again: it's present in a healthy diet, and the evidence is pretty strong that it's protective against a variety of cancers.

Should MK-4 be added? Or should the amount of MK-7 be increased?

I may be in the minority, but I feel the current amount is too low, seeing as a great deal of people should be taking a partial dose of the multi. So let's go hypothetical and say a person takes 1/3rd dose/daily. That's 15mcg of MK-7 daily. Rotterdam was > 30mcg (if I remember right). Even a half dose/daily is below this number.

And yes, some is better than none. But what rationale is there to leaving the dose at 45mcg? I wouldn't consider 90-100mcg to be a particularly dangerous dose, when compared to natto intake. An alternative is to include some MK-4 instead, perhaps?


First, the reasoning that doses should be boosted "seeing as a great deal of people should be taking a partial dose of the multi" applies to all nutrients. The whole point is that people actually do get nutrients from their diets (and should be encouraged to maximize this option): the multi is there as a supplement to the diet,to top up what's left. It shouldn't provide all you need with anything less than the full day's dose -- and no one should take a full day's dose. The rationale for leaving the dose at 45 µg is thus, quite precisely, that these doses are in line with the highest intake groups from food in Rotterdam and EPIC, and is associated with health benefits; going beyond this to expose people to doses outside the dietary norm, even for unusually high-MK4 diets.

At 6 caps/daily, the [Mg] dose is rather large.


The dose is only half the RDA ...

Should the form of magnesium be changed? Could we switch to citrate, malate, etc. (or whatever form is more compact) and get the cap number decreased? Perhaps lower overall cost of product as well then.


I would certainly prefer we switch to another form: glycinate is insanely bulky, isn only marginally more bioavailable than oxide (and less than citrate and probably gluconate -- see here and here), and the bioavailability of minerals is largely a bugaboo anyway.

Would it make sense to not include any folate at all, regardless of form? Those with MTHFR abnormalities will probably need more than supplied in the multi anyway. Those without it are probably fine from diet.


I would almost agree with you for the general population, because of the widespread fortification of grain products. However, we're here for healthy people too ;) . Folate is risky; folinic acid or MTHF should not be, though of course I'd've said the same thing about any number of nutrients a decade ago ...

#16 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:18 PM

First, the reasoning that doses should be boosted "seeing as a great deal of people should be taking a partial dose of the multi" applies to all nutrients. The whole point is that people actually do get nutrients from their diets (and should be encouraged to maximize this option): the multi is there as a supplement to the diet,to top up what's left. It shouldn't provide all you need with anything less than the full day's dose -- and no one should take a full day's dose. The rationale for leaving the dose at 45 µg is thus, quite precisely, that these doses are in line with the highest intake groups from food in Rotterdam and EPIC, and is associated with health benefits; going beyond this to expose people to doses outside the dietary norm, even for unusually high-MK4 diets.


As for K2, I guess my question is, how does the MK-7 dose compare to Japanese dietary intake? I am not sure how the RDA (or AI) labels are determined for K2 on most supplements, but it's also listed at about 50% or so of the RDA, so I'd think there could be some leeway as to increasing the dose. I think natto studies show that the dose was somewhere around 200mcg/daily, with no ill effects, so I'm not so sure it's way outside of dietary norms (at least for natto people). Unless we just sorta pick what dietary norm we are looking at (cheese vs natto).

The rationale for leaving the dose at 45 µg is thus, quite precisely, that these doses are in line with the highest intake groups from food in Rotterdam and EPIC, and is associated with health benefits; going beyond this to expose people to doses outside the dietary norm, even for unusually high-MK4 diets.


But there is no MK-4 at all in Vimmortal anyway. Should we automatically assume MK-7 = MK-4? I think Rotterdam measured mixed forms, from MK-4, to MK7-MK-9. So should some MK-4 be included in the product?

At 6 caps/daily, the dose is rather large. The dose is only half the RDA ...


Sorry, I meant the total daily dose of Vimmortal, at 6 caps, not Mg dose.

Edited by nameless, 30 March 2012 - 05:20 PM.


#17 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

Being that there is only one objection to lycopene from the expert panel, it is probably somewhat cancer protective, can be sourced from raw food, and was strongly supported by member voting, I am going to put lycopene in the IN category for Vimmortal 2.0.

As you probably noticed, the end of March - the original deadline - has passed and we are not quite finished with a formulation, but are getting closer. We will still need input from Anthony (who is busy with other business right now) or another manufacturer (if needed) in order to get pricing.

So I will continue to move things forward, as time allows. A very big thanks for all of your expert input thus far. I can tell that you are thinking seriously about this open source multi-vitamin and the community involved. It is much appreciated.

#18 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:36 PM

In order to wrap-up the discussion of copper, can anyone point in the direction of a definitive study that makes it obvious that the best health outcome for supplementing copper is when it is in a 1 to 10 ratio with zinc. Where does that reasoning come from?

#19 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:55 PM

can anyone point in the direction of a definitive study that makes it obvious that the best health outcome for supplementing copper is when it is in a 1 to 10 ratio with zinc.


No one can point to a definitive study that makes it obvious that the best health outcome for supplementing anything is any particular amount. Nutrition is a science in its very, very early days.

The best complex of evidence is a mixture of (a) the oppositional nature of Zn and Cu, compete fairly strongly for transporters, ligands, and functional sites, making maintaining some ratio in principle important, (b) the fact that the DRI RDAs for copper and zinc are in about this ratio (0.9 and 11 mg), as have been previous RDAs, and © a range of human and animal studies showing abnormalities when one gets too far away from these ratios, but without nailing it down to an exact, definitive ratio (as would be impractical and unethical in human studies: a grossly deviant ratio can show obvious, negative short-term effects, but you'd need decades of supplementation at each of a range of ratios to nail down more subtle, long-term effects). Here are a few relevant full-text papers:

http://www.ajcn.org/...621S.1.full.pdf
http://www.jacn.org/...t/17/4/322.full
http://www.mdpi.com/...01/7/4/1342/pdf
http://ddr.nal.usda....IND44458961.pdf
http://ddr.nal.usda....FNI85007933.pdf
http://ddr.nal.usda....IN769065205.pdf

These focus mostly on excess Zn driving down functional Cu, which is the problem that most people have; CR folk tend to have the reverse, due to low intake of meat and massive intake of veg.However, it's also been found (also by Klevay) that weight loss increases the requirement for Cu, so that may have less of an impact.

#20 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:39 PM

I am fine with the Vitamin E suggestions by Ajnast4r and Michael represented in this post:

I'm with ajnast4r on bringing the IUage down to the RDA, and with mimicing the balance of E vitamers in whole-foods diets. The top quintiles of tocopherol intake in the NIH-AARP study, for instance, were >8.8 mg α-tocopherol and >18.2 mg γ-tocopherol. I would regard this ~1:2 ratio as a ceiling to what one might get in a healthy whole-food diet: it's mostly attributable to N. American's relatively high consumption of soybean oil. An European cohort, by contrast, would have a a 2:1 α:γ ratio, per PMID 15256801. Provisionally, I'd say throw in the standard mixed tocopherol stuff up to the amount required to reach 15 mg α-tocopherol, let the others fall where they may, and see how that actually breaks down with dietary intake. If that's ≤30 mg γ-tocopherol, we're golden.


Is this fine with everyone else?

#21 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:36 PM

I am getting all the changes together on the formulatoin.

Would anyone object if I added astragalus extract?

Thank you
A

#22 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:30 PM

Also... there is Lithium Asparatate and Lithium Oratate that we can use in a supplement. Lithium Carbonate is considered a drug, and I don't want issues with the FDA.

Any preference in the other two?

#23 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:51 PM

For Mixed Carotenoids (vitamin a)
Snuffy suggests no Beta carotene:

Skip down to minute 2:30 (I am not sure how to embed this Mp4 video here)
http://videos.videop...ovie-15_dvd.mp4

I will look for something with low or no b-carotene because of this suggestion.

He also talks about about avoiding chondroitin and flaxseed oil that we don't use in the Vimmortal.

#24 Mind

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,409 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:45 PM

Also... there is Lithium Asparatate and Lithium Oratate that we can use in a supplement. Lithium Carbonate is considered a drug, and I don't want issues with the FDA.

Any preference in the other two?


We used lithium orotate last time. I think everyone expected we would use this form again.

I am getting all the changes together on the formulatoin.

Would anyone object if I added astragalus extract?

Thank you
A


Yes. Based on the fact that no one discussed or voted to add astragalus.

Nothing should be added that was not first discussed openly in either the 1.0 or 2.0 formulation process.

#25 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:15 PM

For Mixed Carotenoids (vitamin a)
Snuffy suggests no Beta carotene:

Skip down to minute 2:30 (I am not sure how to embed this Mp4 video here)
http://videos.videop...ovie-15_dvd.mp4

I will look for something with low or no b-carotene because of this suggestion.


I can't get this vid to open in iTunes, WMP, or Firefox. Can you please either provide another version, or summarize the argument?

He also talks about about avoiding chondroitin and flaxseed oil that we don't use in the Vimmortal.


As you say, we havent' used it in the past. It's not on the table now, either. Why are you raising it ...?

Also... there is Lithium Asparatate and Lithium Oratate that we can use in a supplement. [...]

Any preference in the other two?

We used lithium orotate last time. I think everyone expected we would use this form again.


As discussed earlier in the thread, a couple of folks had claimed adverse reactions to the orotate, and cited some (irrelevant, IMO) literature on the subject. I don't think it's worth fighting over, and would be fine with the aspartate.

Would anyone object if I added astragalus extract?


Yes. Based on the fact that no one discussed or voted to add astragalus.


Indeed -- and that its inclusion would be contrary to the core purpose of the supplement (to make up for nutrients that should be in a healthy, balanced diet -- AFAIK only cattle eat Astragalus outside of TCM).

Edited by Michael, 25 September 2012 - 11:19 AM.


#26 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:00 PM

Hi Michael,

For the video of Dr. Myers, try this link:
http://askdrmyers.wo...rostate-cancer/


A

#27 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:18 PM

Mind and Michael,

I understand the methodology is important, however have I never asked for anything to be considered before for this product. So, do me a favor and can you open up the discussion for this one item?

I would certainly like to know, besides we have some time before everything is put together.

A

#28 niner

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

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:41 AM

I understand the methodology is important, however have I never asked for anything to be considered before for this product. So, do me a favor and can you open up the discussion for this one item?


Without formally calling it 'discussion', I'll make a couple comments. I think that if there is a discussion, you will get a lot of pushback on including astragalus compounds, for several reasons:

1. A basic tenet of the design is that a multi should only contain things that everyone needs, and nothing that a significant number of people would specifically not want.

2. The evidence for the efficacy of A4 or cycloastragenol as telomerase activators in humans is pretty thin.

3. Wouldn't an adequate dose of A4 drive the capsule count a lot higher? Cycloastragenol would drive up the cost, if not the cap count.

4. A lot of people are afraid of telomerase activators because of cancer concerns. The addition of these might shrink the market for Vimmortal, instead of increasing it.

#29 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 25 September 2012 - 02:13 AM

Besides being opposed to including astragalus, I'm rather surprised it was brought up at all by Anthony.

I assumed you have followed some of the past discussions in this forum regarding the design of the multi. If so, you should realize it pretty much is the opposite of what should be included. If you want to include astragalus, how is it a general multi anymore? And if you include small amounts, how is it any better than all of the multis routinely dismissed here, for including iffy extras simply for marketing purposes?

Edited by nameless, 25 September 2012 - 02:14 AM.


#30 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:18 AM

I understand the methodology is important, however have I never asked for anything to be considered before for this product. So, do me a favor and can you open up the discussion for this one item?


I wasn't intending to close down the discussion, and have no power to do so: I was giving my (strong) opinion on why it would be inappropriate to include it in a multi. I would hold this view in discussion of any formula designed as a multivitamin, but as Niner and nameless have also indicated, throwing it in to Vimmortal in particular would be especially incongruous, as it would be contrary to the explicit premises on which this specific formulation has been structured from the get-go.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vimmortal 2.0, voting summary, expert panel, vimmortal

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users