Whoa! Lay Off the Vitamins!

Alternative Medicine
281
OK so you agree that in order for it to be considered an improved, good, better diet it has to result in better health? That IS what we mean when we say someone is "benefiting" right? If it doesn't result in better health then there is no benefit.
If those people who are choosing a lifestyle to improve their health through a better diet(among other things) are starting from a lesser degree of health-then yes. Their better diet will result in better health. But many of us maintain an improved diet through our lifestyle choices, to maintain our good health. Not to better it. When I, for example am in peak fitness level, there's not much more I can do to better my health through lifestyle. That doesn't mean I slack off of my healthy diet lifestyle choices.
The same is true for taking vitamin supplements. If they don't result in better health compared to someone who does not take them then there is no benefit right?
I think I covered that right above here. These questions of yours are starting to sound frantic MacGeyver. Relax a little.
282
At one time we thought trans fats, for example, were safe and frequently used them as an alternative to lard. Now we are hearing, "Oops! We were wrong" and trans fats are being removed from all our foods because it turns out they are actually bad for us and can cause, for example, heart problems. The food pyramid has been changed many times just in the 20th century. This is because of science constantly finding new information and learning from mistakes.
We can only act on the best information available at the time. That doesn't mean we should just throw out the data and guess at what to do. More often than not the science based approach is going to have the best chance of helping us make the right decision. In this thread we are faced with the question of whether to take vitamin supplements or not. Taking them may have beneficial effects but multiple studies have been unable to confirm any benefit. Conversely vitamins may be harmful and a number of well done studies have shown that in some circumstances this is true. Are you suggesting then that we do exactly the opposite of what the science says for no other reason than that may learn something different later? By that logic we should stop eating fruits and vegies and fill up on McDonalds because we may learn that fatty greasy meat is healthier than fresh vegetables for our health
It makes no sense to supplement milk with vitamin D (for example), and then turn around and say, vitamin supplements are bad, because you can get them from food, of which not everyone imbibes in all foods or have extremely poor diets even in an advance society that supplements many foods. There are people extremely stubborn about eating non-organic foods, with added substances and those who believe milk is only for babies, as well as other ideas surrounding food that people come up with, besides vegans, vegetarians, strict meat and potato people, etc etc., even lactose intolerant individuals. I think that is where Vyazma and I stand on this matter, which seems to confuse you two (McKenzie and macgyver) completely, even greatly, causing you to think it is a matter of close-mindedness and vice-versa, I might add.
What seems to keep confusing you is that we are talking about the average person on the average diet. You keep bringing up exceptions concerning the minority of people on non-average diets but that's not the purpose of this discussion. Even so there is no specific data showing that those people will benefit from vitamin supplementation or that it is a safe thing to do. As I have pointed out previously, even supplements with reasonable amounts of some vitamins can lead to negative consequences such as Vit E increasing therisk of prostate cancer.
All of that aside, let us propose that you and McKenzie are right, macgyver, about vitamin supplements in pill form and return to a question that was not actually answered on previous pages, in the hopes of a clear straight forward answer that actually makes sense, even if we or others do not agree with it. IF a person doesn't/refuses to eat or drink dairy products, then they are not benefiting from the supplement vitamin D added to milk and are getting very little calcium, if any at all, depending if they ingest things like tofu, soy milk, and alike or not. They are probably vitamin D deficient, which even adults can be deficient in vitamin D, even in a society like ours and extremely few foods, if any, have vitamin D in them, esp naturally. That much I think we can all agree on without a doubt and now that the scenario is set up, let us also assume that blood tests and all were ran to satisfy the doctors involved needing proof that the subject/patient is indeed deficient in vitamin D. IF the person refuses to drink milk supplemented with vitamin D (a very difficult vitamin to find, esp in organic non-supplemented/fortified foods, for example), for whatever excuse they may have or are truly lactose intolerant, where do you suggest/propose they get vitamin D, besides hopelessly attempting to convince them they'd have better health and diet if they imbibed in milk fortified with vitamin D, esp during winter months when most people do not get as much sun? Or do you just give up on the person and allow them to suffer with a deficiency because they are lactose intolerant or they truly believe milk is for infants or are gungho on organic foods or are animal rights extremists or whatever other excuse there is out there for not drinking milk with vitamin D in it? It is a reasonable question and could indeed occur, even in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Germany, and alike countries.
Unfortunately you have used as an example a very controversial vitamin. If you measure Vit D levels in America you will find that in fact most people fall below the "normal" range. One would assume that these people all need some sort of supplementation. There are problems with that conclusion though. Serum Vit D levels do not necessarily tell you how much vit D is in the body as a whole so its difficult to determine what the importance of a low vitamin D level is. Secondly, while there have been studies showing an ASSOCIATION between low vit D and increased incidence of heart disease and cancer the few RCT's which have been done do not show a causative role. Low vit D may simply be a marker for poor health rather than a cause. Finally, despite the widespread presence of low vitamin D levels in the population there is little evidence that we are suffering any health consequences form these "low levels" The point here is that the role of vitamins in the body is very complex. Its not a simple matter of supplementing individuals to some arbitrary normal level to maximize health. Doing this could possibly result in poorer health outcomes in some situations. This is the important point that you and Vyazma seem to be missing. Vitamins supplements are not a "what harm could it do" situation. They are as likely to harm us as help us and since we have no convincing evidence that they are beneficial most people should not be taking them. For people on unusual diets the jury is still out but such patients should probably see a nutritionist or their doctor rather than blindly taking supplements to patch the presumed holes in their diets
283
OK so you agree that in order for it to be considered an improved, good, better diet it has to result in better health? That IS what we mean when we say someone is "benefiting" right? If it doesn't result in better health then there is no benefit.
If those people who are choosing a lifestyle to improve their health through a better diet(among other things) are starting from a lesser degree of health-then yes. Their better diet will result in better health. But many of us maintain an improved diet through our lifestyle choices, to maintain our good health. Not to better it. When I, for example am in peak fitness level, there's not much more I can do to better my health through lifestyle. That doesn't mean I slack off of my healthy diet lifestyle choices.
The same is true for taking vitamin supplements. If they don't result in better health compared to someone who does not take them then there is no benefit right?
I think I covered that right above here. These questions of yours are starting to sound frantic MacGeyver. Relax a little. There is just disappointment on this end that you have such a difficult time understanding such a simple concept. Even if one is taking vitamins or a good diet to maintain one's health we should expect to see a difference between that person and the one who does not eat a good diet or take vitamins to maintain their health. The person who is not eating a good diet or taking vitamins should see their health deteriorate compared to the individual who is doing those things. If that were not true than why would you continue the practice of eating well and taking vitamins? If its not true you could eat all the junk you want and throw the vitamins down the drain A healthy diet full of fruits, veggies and low in red meat clearly results in healthier individuals yet the intake of vitamin supplements does not, so to maintain your health it is clear that the average person can throw the vitamins down the drain I believe its your posts that smell of desperation. You and Mriana are going to great lengths to preserve your belief in the vitamin god.
284

I’m not going to argue in favor of anyone else, but my reasoning is that 1) at 83 my small intestines and the rest of my metabolism isn’t as efficient as it was when I was, say, 30; 2) Even though I exercise, I find that I need far fewer calories so I eat much less (and still don’t lose weight); 3) Since I have high cholesterol and am sensitive to all statins I avoid meat, eggs and dairy products except for low fat ones; 4) I have low pigmentation skin and am prone to skin cancers so I avoid the sun. From all of the above, you can say what you want about an “adequate” diet and the evils of supplements, but I’m going to continue taking some vitamins, especially vitamin D.
Occam

285
We can only act on the best information available at the time. That doesn't mean we should just throw out the data and guess at what to do. More often than not the science based approach is going to have the best chance of helping us make the right decision. In this thread we are faced with the question of whether to take vitamin supplements or not. Taking them may have beneficial effects but multiple studies have been unable to confirm any benefit. Conversely vitamins may be harmful and a number of well done studies have shown that in some circumstances this is true. Are you suggesting then that we do exactly the opposite of what the science says for no other reason than that may learn something different later? By that logic we should stop eating fruits and vegies and fill up on McDonalds because we may learn that fatty greasy meat is healthier than fresh vegetables for our health
I didn't say we should throw out the data, when it's the best we have nor am I suggesting we do the opposite either. It would be utterly stupid and preposterous to load up on McD food, just as it is preposterous not to load up on fruits and veggies.
What seems to keep confusing you is that we are talking about the average person on the average diet. You keep bringing up exceptions concerning the minority of people on non-average diets but that's not the purpose of this discussion. Even so there is no specific data showing that those people will benefit from vitamin supplementation or that it is a safe thing to do. As I have pointed out previously, even supplements with reasonable amounts of some vitamins can lead to negative consequences such as Vit E increasing therisk of prostate cancer.
You keep saying average diet, but the truth is, "diets" are as individual as the people who eat. The fact is, you don't know what the "average diet" is or you would have answered Vyazma's question a long time ago. Drs can encourage people to eat diets high in fruits and vegetable, but many people, esp those not appalled by eating cooked dead animals, often load up on fatty foods with very little fruits and veggies, which makes that the average American diet. If that's the "average diet", which it is in the U.S., then it's a very poor diet and not in keeping with a diet high in fruits and vegetables. I'm not sure how in the world one gets all their vitamins from the disgusting "average diet" in the U.S. However, it seems to me you're intentionally attempting to disregard my question.
Unfortunately you have used as an example a very controversial vitamin. If you measure Vit D levels in America you will find that in fact most people fall below the "normal" range. One would assume that these people all need some sort of supplementation. There are problems with that conclusion though. Serum Vit D levels do not necessarily tell you how much vit D is in the body as a whole so its difficult to determine what the importance of a low vitamin D level is. Secondly, while there have been studies showing an ASSOCIATION between low vit D and increased incidence of heart disease and cancer the few RCT's which have been done do not show a causative role. Low vit D may simply be a marker for poor health rather than a cause. Finally, despite the widespread presence of low vitamin D levels in the population there is little evidence that we are suffering any health consequences form these "low levels" The point here is that the role of vitamins in the body is very complex. Its not a simple matter of supplementing individuals to some arbitrary normal level to maximize health. Doing this could possibly result in poorer health outcomes in some situations. This is the important point that you and Vyazma seem to be missing. Vitamins supplements are not a "what harm could it do" situation. They are as likely to harm us as help us and since we have no convincing evidence that they are beneficial most people should not be taking them. For people on unusual diets the jury is still out but such patients should probably see a nutritionist or their doctor rather than blindly taking supplements to patch the presumed holes in their diets
You didn't answer my question and seem to be intentionally attempting to brush it aside. There was no direct up front answer, just an attempt to brush it aside instead of directly answering it. You can't sit on the witness stand and answer the question that way. You have an idea of the person's diet, which is lacking severely in vitamin D, and they are low on vitamin D. "IF the person refuses to drink milk supplemented with vitamin D (a very difficult vitamin to find, esp in organic non-supplemented/fortified foods, for example), for whatever excuse they may have or are truly lactose intolerant, where do you suggest/propose they get vitamin D, besides hopelessly attempting to convince them they'd have better health and diet if they imbibed in milk fortified with vitamin D, esp during winter months when most people do not get as much sun?" One simple sentence, pertaining to diet, as discussed in this thread, OR "I'd look for other probable cause" (which is extremely costly, maybe even a waste of money, for the patient, esp when their diet is obviously lacking) is more than enough. "Or do you just give up on the person and allow them to suffer with a deficiency because they are lactose intolerant or they truly believe milk is for infants or are gungho on organic foods or are animal rights extremists or whatever other excuse there is out there for not drinking milk with vitamin D in it?" Yes or no? Since it's obvious you rather waste the patient's money on costly tests that probably don't need to be done, esp when the answer was handed to you on a plate, it's no wonder the health care system and medical insurance is broken in the U.S. Unfortunately, I can't immigrate to where they have socialized medicine and try to avoid unnecessary medical expenses.
286
I'm not going to argue in favor of anyone else, but my reasoning is that 1) at 83 my small intestines and the rest of my metabolism isn't as efficient as it was when I was, say, 30; 2) Even though I exercise, I find that I need far fewer calories so I eat much less (and still don't lose weight); 3) Since I have high cholesterol and am sensitive to all statins I avoid meat, eggs and dairy products except for low fat ones; 4) I have low pigmentation skin and am prone to skin cancers so I avoid the sun. From all of the above, you can say what you want about an "adequate" diet and the evils of supplements, but I'm going to continue taking some vitamins, especially vitamin D. Occam
No problem, Occam. Freedom of religion is your constitutional right. ;-)
287
I'm not going to argue in favor of anyone else, but my reasoning is that 1) at 83 my small intestines and the rest of my metabolism isn't as efficient as it was when I was, say, 30; 2) Even though I exercise, I find that I need far fewer calories so I eat much less (and still don't lose weight); 3) Since I have high cholesterol and am sensitive to all statins I avoid meat, eggs and dairy products except for low fat ones; 4) I have low pigmentation skin and am prone to skin cancers so I avoid the sun. From all of the above, you can say what you want about an "adequate" diet and the evils of supplements, but I'm going to continue taking some vitamins, especially vitamin D. Occam
Same here, Occam. I'm just frustrated that some people want to charge us so much for health care or order unnecessary tests just to get more money out of us. The U.S. health system has left us no choice and the ACA doesn't give millions of people access to health insurance. Many of us still don't have insurance and it's not for lack of trying to apply on healthcare.gov, but because red states have done everything to keep their people from getting health insurance, making many fall through the cracks. This leaves many of us Dx, Rx, and Tx ourselves as we attempt to R/O the various things- such as what might work, what doesn't work for our various maladies. I've heard some people have even attempted minor surgery on themselves, which isn't very bright. Not sure what will happen after so many people realize they still aren't going to get health care insurance because their state has made it so they continue to fall through the cracks of the ACA. It's still not affordable or even attainable, esp in red states. Don't get me wrong, I rallied and supported Obama's health care and even wanted it, but the Reich has screwed it all up, leaving millions without health care still. I still haven't gotten my Obama Care, because I'm in a damn red state.
288
You didn't answer my question and seem to be intentionally attempting to brush it aside. There was no direct up front answer, just an attempt to brush it aside instead of directly answering it. You can't sit on the witness stand and answer the question that way. You have an idea of the person's diet, which is lacking severely in vitamin D, and they are low on vitamin D. "IF the person refuses to drink milk supplemented with vitamin D (a very difficult vitamin to find, esp in organic non-supplemented/fortified foods, for example), for whatever excuse they may have or are truly lactose intolerant, where do you suggest/propose they get vitamin D, besides hopelessly attempting to convince them they'd have better health and diet if they imbibed in milk fortified with vitamin D, esp during winter months when most people do not get as much sun?" One simple sentence, pertaining to diet, as discussed in this thread, OR "I'd look for other probable cause" (which is extremely costly, maybe even a waste of money, for the patient, esp when their diet is obviously lacking) is more than enough. "Or do you just give up on the person and allow them to suffer with a deficiency because they are lactose intolerant or they truly believe milk is for infants or are gungho on organic foods or are animal rights extremists or whatever other excuse there is out there for not drinking milk with vitamin D in it?" Yes or no? Since it's obvious you rather waste the patient's money on costly tests that probably don't need to be done, esp when the answer was handed to you on a plate, it's no wonder the health care system and medical insurance is broken in the U.S. Unfortunately, I can't immigrate to where they have socialized medicine and try to avoid unnecessary medical expenses.
I did answer your question although maybe you didnt pick up on it. I would ignore the Vit D levels since they are unreliable. I do not advise patients to have their vit D levels checked nor do I treat them if they come to me with levels from another doctor which show them to be low. There is quite literally no evidence at all to show that supplementing low vit D levels is either safe or effective in keeping patients healthy. treating low vitamin D levels is a perfect example of treating the numbers instead of treating the patient. Advising such patients to take vitamin D supplements would be irresponsible. I do use the opportunity to review their diet and encourage them to eat a healthy well balanced diet but contrary to what you believe, advising such patients to take vitamin supplements would not be a solution to this problem. P.S. You may want to keep your ill informed personal attacks and rants to yourself. Try to stay on topic.
289

True story- I’ve been trying to get health insurance since healthcare.org open. I still don’t have insurance. I get migraines and over the holidays, I had one that almost unrelenting, except when my older son, who’s now working to get his license as a massage therapist, massaged certain areas of my neck and head. At times, esp at night I thought it was going to explode out the top of my head. I got relief long enough to enjoy Thanksgiving thanks to my son, but then it returned. I also had very bad sinuses with it and as my dr said, migraines can trigger sinuses and sinuses can trigger migraines. Thinking it might have been a sinus infection and I did all that I could do myself in a couple months time, I went to urgent care. There the dr insisted he would not treat me, not even give me an antibiotic for a sinus infection, unless he did a CT scan to check for a tumour or stroke, of which he found none. I told the quack that I have a history of migraines, what gave me temporary relief (my massage therapist son’s massages) with this on and off again headache, and that my Imitrex was not working nor did Ibuprofen and sinus meds relieve it. Both my son and I knew it wasn’t a tumour, but the stupid quack insisted on bombing my brain with radiation via CT scan of which he had no clue about LDCT and said CTs are all the same. No insurance and I’m stuck with a CT scan bill I can’t afford to pay. He did give me Tylonal 3. I only have taken 2 of them for pain until my son return to give me another massage. I haven’t taking any more potentially addictive codeine since his last massage over a week ago. His massage therapy is cheaper than the damn Urgent Care quack’s examination, CT, and treatment- more effective too. One doesn’t need a damn CT scan for a potential migraine and/or sinus infection. Given massage therapy provided relief when nothing else did, I’m willing to bet I had an on again, off again migraine for the better part of the holidays, starting just before Thanksgiving, and everything that quack did just before Xmas, was costly, and potentially addictive, overkill, just to make more money where there was none to be made. If I had insurance, my own dr would have seen me during her next open appt., whenever that will be, but I’m sure the Tx/Rx will involve something more expensive than Imitrex and worse than Tylonal 3. So sometimes, if a malady is more than likely stressed induce, like in the case of migraines, then an alternative, such as massage therapy, relaxation exercises, and even yoga, is preferable, IMO. Of course I’m not talking about supplements or even herbal medicines. My point is, even in cases of obvious nutritional deficiencies, one doesn’t need costly and unnecessary tests. That’s ridiculous, esp when you know the patient’s diet, medical history, done the appropriate test for a vitamin deficiency, know what medicines they are taking, and see the obvious problem. Anything else is just to get more money out of the individual or their insurance provider, as well as jack up the health care system more, while others, like my aunt, sits (literally) in nursing home, due to so many mini-strokes, that it looks like she’s had a massive stroke, as we all watch her linger, as she recognizes us one day and not the next, and wait for her to die, which will end her suffering, because she’s not living life. So yes, I do have a corn cob up my butt about this because the U.S. medical system has failed with all it’s scientific research while other advanced countries are doing far better with health care and medical science/research, with different results than the U.S.

290
You didn't answer my question and seem to be intentionally attempting to brush it aside. There was no direct up front answer, just an attempt to brush it aside instead of directly answering it. You can't sit on the witness stand and answer the question that way. You have an idea of the person's diet, which is lacking severely in vitamin D, and they are low on vitamin D. "IF the person refuses to drink milk supplemented with vitamin D (a very difficult vitamin to find, esp in organic non-supplemented/fortified foods, for example), for whatever excuse they may have or are truly lactose intolerant, where do you suggest/propose they get vitamin D, besides hopelessly attempting to convince them they'd have better health and diet if they imbibed in milk fortified with vitamin D, esp during winter months when most people do not get as much sun?" One simple sentence, pertaining to diet, as discussed in this thread, OR "I'd look for other probable cause" (which is extremely costly, maybe even a waste of money, for the patient, esp when their diet is obviously lacking) is more than enough. "Or do you just give up on the person and allow them to suffer with a deficiency because they are lactose intolerant or they truly believe milk is for infants or are gungho on organic foods or are animal rights extremists or whatever other excuse there is out there for not drinking milk with vitamin D in it?" Yes or no? Since it's obvious you rather waste the patient's money on costly tests that probably don't need to be done, esp when the answer was handed to you on a plate, it's no wonder the health care system and medical insurance is broken in the U.S. Unfortunately, I can't immigrate to where they have socialized medicine and try to avoid unnecessary medical expenses.
I did answer your question although maybe you didnt pick up on it. I would ignore the Vit D levels since they are unreliable. I do not advise patients to have their vit D levels checked nor do I treat them if they come to me with levels from another doctor which show them to be low. There is quite literally no evidence at all to show that supplementing low vit D levels is either safe or effective in keeping patients healthy. treating low vitamin D levels is a perfect example of treating the numbers instead of treating the patient. Advising such patients to take vitamin D supplements would be irresponsible. I do use the opportunity to review their diet and encourage them to eat a healthy well balanced diet but contrary to what you believe, advising such patients to take vitamin supplements would not be a solution to this problem. P.S. You may want to keep your ill informed personal attacks and rants to yourself. Try to stay on topic. I was staying on topic up to the last post. So if the patient is lactose intolerant, you'd still tell them to drink milk fortified with vitamin D? (Ill-informed opinions? Seriously?)
291

In your view, Macgyver, is there any difference between Vitamin D3 and any other kind of Vtamin D? (Is there a 1 and 2?) I see that D3 is being pushed lately. It is included in the calcium supplements I take at my doctor’s suggestion.

292
In your view, Macgyver, is there any difference between Vitamin D3 and any other kind of Vtamin D? (Is there a 1 and 2?) I see that D3 is being pushed lately. It is included in the calcium supplements I take at my doctor's suggestion.
I'm not Macgyver, but yes, there is a D2, but there is a reason why D2 isn't pushed: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full
293
There is just disappointment on this end that you have such a difficult time understanding such a simple concept. Even if one is taking vitamins or a good diet to maintain one's health we should expect to see a difference between that person and the one who does not eat a good diet or take vitamins to maintain their health.
I don't know what we should expect to see MacGeyver. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. This sentence makes absolutely no sense. Every individual is different and sees different results in their health through the lifestyle choices they make. Individual results may vary. Obviously! What the heck are you trying to say with this sentence. It doesn't even make sense. You're the one who said improving a diet improves health. Therefore if one chooses to live a healthy lifestyle they should on average be healthier than those that don't.
The person who is not eating a good diet or taking vitamins should see their health deteriorate compared to the individual who is doing those things. If that were not true than why would you continue the practice of eating well and taking vitamins? If its not true you could eat all the junk you want and throw the vitamins down the drain
I totally agree here with you. You were the one who said that a better diet results in better health. This is indisputable. A healthier lifestyle including diet and exercise leads to a healthier individual. Of course healthy diet means including supplementation for many millions of Americans.
A healthy diet full of fruits, veggies and low in red meat clearly results in healthier individuals yet the intake of vitamin supplements does not, so to maintain your health it is clear that the average person can throw the vitamins down the drain
Yeah, if only myself and millions of Americans could find the time, tastes, money, or general wherewithal to eat that way we probably wouldn't need supplements. You devolving back to a lifestyle argument again? I thought you were going to go the cancer route first?
I believe its your posts that smell of desperation. You and Mriana are going to great lengths to preserve your belief in the vitamin god.
C'mon now....
294
MacGeyver-A healthy diet full of fruits, veggies and low in red meat clearly results in healthier individuals yet the intake of vitamin supplements does not, so to maintain your health it is clear that the average person can throw the vitamins down the drain
Did you just make this part up about the vitamins not resulting in healthier individuals? Because here you are agreeing that vitamins can be used to supplement diets that are lacking in in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin intake....
Where do I state that taking a multi-vitamin will have health benefits? You keep going back to that MacGeyver, that's like the 20th time. Do you find it necessary to twist my statements around to continue participating in this thread? Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body. They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake. Which one of these statements is a hypothesis Macgeyver?
I NEVER said that was a hypothesis. It clearly is not...... So obviously supplementing one's diet with vitamins can lead to a better diet, which when combined with other facets of a healthy lifestyle, leads to a healthier individual. Or even by itself actually. If one can only have a healthy diet, that's better than nothing.
295
In your view, Macgyver, is there any difference between Vitamin D3 and any other kind of Vtamin D? (Is there a 1 and 2?) I see that D3 is being pushed lately. It is included in the calcium supplements I take at my doctor's suggestion.
I'm not Macgyver, but yes, there is a D2, but there is a reason why D2 isn't pushed: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full Interesting. Thanks. Lois
296
In your view, Macgyver, is there any difference between Vitamin D3 and any other kind of Vtamin D? (Is there a 1 and 2?) I see that D3 is being pushed lately. It is included in the calcium supplements I take at my doctor's suggestion.
I'm not Macgyver, but yes, there is a D2, but there is a reason why D2 isn't pushed: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full Interesting. Thanks. Lois You're welcome.
297
Did you just make this part up about the vitamins not resulting in healthier individuals? Because here you are agreeing that vitamins can be used to supplement diets that are lacking in in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin intake.... So obviously supplementing one's diet with vitamins can lead to a better diet, which when combined with other facets of a healthy lifestyle, leads to a healthier individual. Or even by itself actually. If one can only have a healthy diet, that's better than nothing.
I agreed that people can use vitamins to supplement their diet, I did not agree that doing so accomplishes anything, just like someone can construct a voodoo doll but that doesnt mean it will do what others claim it will And no, supplementing one's diet with vitamins does not lead to a better diet for most people because it does not lead to healthier people in any way that we have been able to measure. Once again this conversation is going no where. Neither you nor Mriana seem to be able to understand the points we are making despite the fact that I have tried to reword this dozens of times. This is a waste of time. We're not getting anywhere.
298
I agreed that people can use vitamins to supplement their diet, I did not agree that doing so accomplishes anything, just like someone can construct a voodoo doll but that doesnt mean it will do what others claim it will
Even though you ceded that ingesting vitamins releases compounds into the body for metabolism and use by the body. And you agreed with the fortification of staple foods by the gov't and industry. I fail to understand how you feel vitamin supplements accomplish nothing, especially also when you seem to advocate them if they are prescribed by a doctor...
And no, supplementing one's diet with vitamins does not lead to a better diet for most people because it does not lead to healthier people in any way that we have been able to measure.
How does a normal, non-supplemented diet lead to healthier people in ways you can measure?
Once again this conversation is going no where. Neither you nor Mriana seem to be able to understand the points we are making despite the fact that I have tried to reword this dozens of times. This is a waste of time. We're not getting anywhere.
No MacGeyver, I understand the points you are trying to make. You're saying Vitamins are inert, but somehow still cause cancer. That's what you've been saying. You have also been saying that people should follow a lifestyle that you advocate.
299

Have you guys read this article yet or is Fidalgo just out of his mind?

Cap’t Jack

300
Have you guys read this article yet or is Fidalgo just out of his mind? http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253 Cap't Jack
The authors of that article are echoing exactly what mckenzie and I have been saying based on the same studies we have been referring to. I doesn't matter how much evidence or how many expert consensus opinions we post here though. Vyazma and Mriana just don't understand the basic principals of this argument no matter how many ways we have tried to explain it so nothing is going to change their irrational belief system.