Re: multivitamin question

[Guest guest]

I would. I think all people today need a multi. It's not possible to

eat the quantity of food you'd need to in order to get all the

vitamins your body really needs. Especially for children like ours who

have very limited diets

I like Kirkman Spectrum Complete powder. Mixes nicely and does not

taste bad.

..

>

> Is it necessary to give a multivitamin if I'm giving my son individual

> supplements? Any recs for a multi that would be good to give?

> thanks,

> Donna

>

[Guest guest]

If you search our archives you'll find all previous vitamin discussions. As

I've often before and quite recently, all I take these days are Vit D and fish

oil. There is now ample research that vitamins taken out of the food they were

meant to be ingested with (mother nature's packaging) in most cases are useless

or at worst actually harmful. There is a lot about nutrition we have not

discovered yet.

, " erica_w_baker " <erica_w_baker@...> wrote:

>

> I am curious if others in this group take a daily multivitamin or not. Thanks

in advance for any feedback.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi a:

I do NOT take multi-vitamin tablets.

It is a bit of a long story. Different people interpret the available

information differently. Some believe it is not especially important to make

sure one gets the RDAs for all the micronutrients. Some even wonder whether, in

the same way the 'stress' from reduced calories is known to be highly

beneficial, it might be that the 'stress' induced by lower than RDA amounts of

the micronutrients might be beneficial also. But I am not aware of *any*

evidence to support this suggestion.

FWIW, my personal approach to this issue is this: The RDAs have been carefully

calculated by serious scientific efforts to determine the amounts of nutrients

needed to maintain health. So I *do* make a fairly serious effort to make sure

I get the full RDA amount for each of the micronutrients. But multi-vitamin

tablets is not the solution for me. There is no point in supplementing

nutrients where dietary intake is already providing more than plenty. Too much

in some cases is as hazardous as too little.

And as for the nutrients my regular diet provides insufficient quantities of -

calcium, zinc and vitamins D and E - the amounts in a once-daily multi-vitamin

tablet is wholly insufficient.

For example: I once calculated that if I took enough multi-vitamin tablets daily

to get my calcium intake up to where I wanted it, I would be getting very close

to the upper safe limit for iron.

So, my approach is to determine what my nutrient deficiencies are by entering

everything I eat for seven days into CRON-o-Meter (free download and a

fantastically convenient way to analyze one's diet, imo.) Then supplement the

amounts of the deficient nutrients so that my total intake of them comes just up

to the RDA levels.

For me this means supplementing calcium and vitamin D daily, and zinc and

vitamin E weekly.

The only micronutrient for which my intake is intentionally higher than the RDA

is vitamin D, for reasons that have been discussed here extensively in the past

couple of years.

Hope this helps. And be reminded that I may change this approach at any time in

the future if new scientific information suggests that may be appropriate.

Nutrition science remains a long way from being fully understood.

Rodney.

--- In , " erica_w_baker " <erica_w_baker@...>

wrote:

>

> I am curious if others in this group take a daily multivitamin or not. Thanks

in advance for any feedback.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney:I am curious about your statement: " The RDAs have been carefully calculated by serious scientific efforts to

determine the amounts of nutrients needed to maintain health. " Now the following is old, remembered from 20 years back so please, take it with a grain of salt. I participated in a nutrition study sponsored jointly by UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco Medical School about the effects of extreme obesity on pregnancy outcomes. (I was in the normal weight control group.)

The nutritionist grad student I worked with told me that the RDAs were notoriously a skip in the dark because of the problems of using human subjects for experiments. As I remembered it, she said RDAs were calculated in the main using people who volunteered to be on a locked ward for long periods of time, eating only the food provided to them during these extended periods. The only people willing to volunteer for such a human study typically were alcoholics living on the street (i.e. winos).

Also, the RDAs for children were a total guess because, naturally, children aren't of an age to be able to ethically volunteer for such an experiment.I've always been curious. Has there better research about RDAs since then? Or is this grad student incorrect or maybe my memory is whack.

I respect your opinion very much and am curious about what you would make of this.Thanks,Andie Mock

[Guest guest]

Andie,

The RDAs or Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are carefully assessed from a cross

section of the population so that they are representative of the general

requirements. The following link has a set of 12 books (viewable online) that

describe the methodology for establishing the DRIs and the effort that goes into

updating the values so that government agencies can establish nutritional

recommendations. Just the section on protein has 179 pages

(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490 & page=589)

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/dri/

DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKES

Responding to the expansion of scientific knowledge regarding the roles of

nutrients in human health, the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of

Medicine, in partnership with Health Canada, has updated the Recommended Dietary

Allowances (RDAs). The title for these guidelines, Dietary Reference Intakes

(DRIs), is the inclusive name given to this new approach. Since 1998, the

Institute of Medicine has issued a series of DRIs that offer quantitative

estimates of nutrient intakes to be used for planning and assessing diets

applicable to healthy individuals in the United States and Canada.

Tony Zamora

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/vitamins.html

>

> Hi Rodney:

>

> I am curious about your statement:

>

> " The RDAs have been carefully calculated by serious scientific efforts to

> determine the amounts of nutrients needed to maintain health. "

>

> Now the following is old, remembered from 20 years back so please, take it

> with a grain of salt.

>

> I participated in a nutrition study sponsored jointly by UC Berkeley and UC

> San Francisco Medical School about the effects of extreme obesity on

> pregnancy outcomes. (I was in the normal weight control group.)

>

> The nutritionist grad student I worked with told me that the RDAs were

> notoriously a skip in the dark because of the problems of using human

> subjects for experiments. As I remembered it, she said RDAs were calculated

> in the main using people who volunteered to be on a locked ward for long

> periods of time, eating only the food provided to them during these extended

> periods. The only people willing to volunteer for such a human study

> typically were alcoholics living on the street (i.e. winos).

>

> Also, the RDAs for children were a total guess because, naturally, children

> aren't of an age to be able to ethically volunteer for such an experiment.

>

> I've always been curious. Has there better research about RDAs since then?

> Or is this grad student incorrect or maybe my memory is whack.

>

> I respect your opinion very much and am curious about what you would make of

> this.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Andie Mock

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Andie:

Thanks for this insight. I certainly hope that the RDAs are not applicable only

to alcoholics!

However, easily explained, I believe, is the bit about: " RDAs were calculated

in the main using people who volunteered to be on a locked ward for long periods

of time, eating only the food provided to them during these extended periods. "

That is the definition, pretty much, of what is called a 'metabolic ward'. The

only way you can do serious studies of many important medical issues is to quite

literally lock people up for extended periods so that you really truly *do* know

what it is they are eating. It is only in this way that you can be confident

that the effects that are seen are genuinely the effects of what you know *for

certain* they are eating.

You cannot realistically believe with great confidence the results of RDA

studies where people are told exactly what they must eat (and how much of it is

just as important, since this also greatly affects nutrient intake) and then let

them loose and expect total compliance.

We have discussed before here that using an intriguing technique called 'the

doubly labelled water method' a subject's actual caloric intake can be

incontrovertibly determined. But when asked to keep records of what and how

much they have eaten, the data they give clearly understate the amounts they are

known to have actually eaten and, not infrequently, dramatically so. So the

only way to do this kind of analysis and believe the results, is by locking

people up in a 'metabolic ward'.

[We discussed metabolic wards here previously in relation to the effects of

saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease incidence and deaths.]

Rodney.

>

> Hi Rodney:

>

> I am curious about your statement:

>

> " The RDAs have been carefully calculated by serious scientific efforts to

> determine the amounts of nutrients needed to maintain health. "

>

> Now the following is old, remembered from 20 years back so please, take it

> with a grain of salt.

>

> I participated in a nutrition study sponsored jointly by UC Berkeley and UC

> San Francisco Medical School about the effects of extreme obesity on

> pregnancy outcomes. (I was in the normal weight control group.)

>

> The nutritionist grad student I worked with told me that the RDAs were

> notoriously a skip in the dark because of the problems of using human

> subjects for experiments. As I remembered it, she said RDAs were calculated

> in the main using people who volunteered to be on a locked ward for long

> periods of time, eating only the food provided to them during these extended

> periods. The only people willing to volunteer for such a human study

> typically were alcoholics living on the street (i.e. winos).

>

> Also, the RDAs for children were a total guess because, naturally, children

> aren't of an age to be able to ethically volunteer for such an experiment.

>

> I've always been curious. Has there better research about RDAs since then?

> Or is this grad student incorrect or maybe my memory is whack.

>

> I respect your opinion very much and am curious about what you would make of

> this.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Andie Mock

>

[Guest guest]

Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is apparently of

enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper referenced in Al's post

below just being one of the most recent.

The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and apparently

found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early stage which are

responsible for the benefits.

So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing about

supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they are not already

consuming.

It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot longer

because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively robust' until

very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in humans, I might be able

to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to play a full round of golf on my 100th

birthday, without a cart, and carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

Ha!

But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these supplements one

might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity involved?

Rodney.

>

> I would say, yes: " complex dietary cocktails can powerfully ameliorate

biomarkers of aging and modulate mechanisms considered ultimate goals for aging

interventions. "

> The below paper is free-text including pdf-availed.

>

> NEUROSCIENCE:

> Vadim Aksenov, Jiangang Long, Sonali Lokuge, Jane A , Jiankang Liu, and

C Rollo

> Dietary amelioration of locomotor, neurotransmitter and mitochondrial aging

> Exp Biol Med, January 2010; 235: 66 - 76.

>

http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/235/1/66?maxtoshow= & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT=\

1 & author1=rollo & andorexacttitle=and & andorexacttitleabs=and & andorexactfulltext=an\

d & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIT

> http://tinyurl.com/yhng569

>

> Abstract

>

> Aging degrades motivation, cognition, sensory modalities and physical

> capacities, essentially dimming zestful living. Bradykinesis (declining

> physical movement) is a highly reliable biomarker of aging and mortality

> risk.

>

> Mice fed a complex dietary supplement (DSP) designed to ameliorate five

> mechanisms associated with aging showed no loss of total daily locomotion

> compared with >50% decrement in old untreated mice. This was associated with

> boosted striatal neuropeptide Y, reversal of age-related declines in

> mitochondrial complex III activity in brain and amelioration of oxidative

> stress (brain protein carbonyls). Supplemented mice expressed 50% fewer

> mitochondrial protein carbonyls per unit of complex III activity. Reduction

> of free radical production by mitochondria may explain the exceptional

> longevity of birds and dietary restricted animals and no DSP is known to

> impact this mechanism. Functional benefits greatly exceeded the modest

> longevity increases documented for supplemented normal mice.

>

> Regardless, for aging humans maintaining zestful health and performance into

> later years may provide greater social and economic benefits than simply

> prolonging lifespan. Although identifying the role of specific ingredients

> and interactions remains outstanding, results provide proof of principle

> that complex dietary cocktails can powerfully ameliorate biomarkers of aging

> and modulate mechanisms considered ultimate goals for aging interventions.

>

> Keywords: aging, locomotion, mitochondria, protein carbonyls, neuropeptide

> Y, free radicals, energy regulation, growth hormone, mice, dietary

> supplement

>

> ...

>

> Table 1 Ingredients included in the complex dietary supplement.

> ------------------------------------------------

> Ingredient Mouse dose (mg/day/100 mice)

> ------------------------------------------------

> Vitamin B1 30.49

> Ginko biloba 18.29

> Vitamin B3 (niacin) 30.49

> Ginseng 631.1

> Vitamin B6 60.98

> Green tea extract 487.8

> Vitamin B12 0.18

> L-Glutathione 30.49

> Vitamin C 350.61

> Magnesium 45.73

> Vitamin D 0.02

> Manganese 19.05

> Acetyl L-carnitine 146.45

> Melatonin 0.73

> Alpha-lipoic acid 182.93

> N-acetyl cysteine 304.88

> Acetylsalicylic acid 132.11

> Potassium 18.11

> Beta carotene 21.95

> Rutin 304.88

> Bioflavonoids 792.68

> Selenium 0.05

> Chromium picolinate 0.30

> Vitamin E 326.83

> Folic acid 0.61

> Cod liver oil (Omega 3) 1219.51

> Garlic 3.81

> Coenzyme Q10 60.98

> Ginger root extract 600.37

> Flax seed oil 1219.51

> ------------------------------------------------

>

> -- Aalt Pater

>

>

> __________________________________________________________________

> Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your

favourite sites. Download it now

> http://ca.toolbar..

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

Well, just to take issue with one part of your post ..... the part which

said:

" If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be

'locomotively robust' now.. (I ran 5 miles today .... "

As you so eloquently (!) say, you may be wrong. Of course, we know that there

isn't enough information for us to be confident of the facts about this at this

stage. You might be right too! The same, of course, applies also to my

opinions about this. But, given that reservation, here is my opinion, which is

different from yours, based on what I think we know:

Periodically you say something like " I ran five miles today. " I do not know how

often you run five miles, but here is some analysis of the likely (possible?)

effects if someone were to run five miles every day:

Let's suppose that in order to maintain what is considered to be an appropriate

body mass (BMI, or other, better, measure of body mass) a male individual,

without exercise, finds he needs to consume 1800 calories daily. If that

individual additionally were to run five miles daily that would mean he would

have to consume, very approximately, an additional 580 calories just to 'fund'

the additional physical activity and maintain the desired weight.

Now an increase of 580 calories - on top of the 'exercise-free' 1800 -

represents a 32% increase in caloric intake. We all here are aware what an

increase in caloric intake of this magnitude would do to the lifespans of the

animals tested in CR experiments - mice, fruit flies, rats, etc.. It would

reduce their average and maximum lifespans by, very roughly, 32%.

The exercising individual would certainly be much fitter than someone getting by

with just the minimum amount of exercise definitely required to maintain health.

But, as I like to quote, as Dr. Henry , cardiologist, said: " Fitness has

absolutely nothing to do with health. " Source: his book: 'The Exercise Myth'.

So, I would like to suggest to you, that by running five miles a day one would

likely die much fitter, at a 32% younger age.

What is more, the study I referenced had found that the experimental mice had

been able to maintain their levels of 'locomotive robustness', with no

diminution, into old age without the need for additional exercise. So their

findings do not agree with your statement that: " If you want to be

'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust'

now.... " . This study suggests that in order to be 'locomotively robust' in old

age one needs to take the right supplements.

Of course the research I referenced will have to be confirmed by other

investigators, be shown to apply also to humans, and hopefully be more specific

about which supplements were responsible for the observed effects.

Lots of qualifications (!) as I know you will be quick to pick up on! But I am

just trying to make sense of the incomplete knowledge we have about these

things. I am not persuaded that LOTS of exercise is either necessary or

desirable. Years ago I used to jog about ten miles a week. But I no longer do

so because I no longer believe it to be beneficial.

" Just my take " . We all have to draw our own conclusions based on our own

interpretation of the incomplete evidence. But the (inverse) relationship

between caloric intake and lifespan is one of the more strongly supported

propositions discussed here.

Rodney.

> >

> > Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is

> > apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper

> > referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

> >

> > The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and

> > apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early

> > stage which are responsible for the benefits.

> >

> > So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing

> > about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they

> > are not already consuming.

> >

> > It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot

> > longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively

> > robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in

> > humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to

> > play a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and

> > carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

> >

> > Ha!

> >

> > But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these

> > supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity involved?

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I agree, we agree about a lot ....... it isn't my position that we can just

take a few supplements, become couch potatoes and eat potato chips and coke

watching TV.

But if that study does end up being confirmed it may just possibly turn out that

there are some weird supplements from which our 'locomotive robustness' would

(according to the study results, greatly) benefit. And A LOT of exercise is not

likely, IMO, to be a benefit to health for those already fairly seriously

restricting caloric intake.

But as has been posted here previously, the evidence suggests plenty of exercise

*is* beneficial to those who are over weight or obese.

Rodney.

> > > >

> > > > Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is

> > > > apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper

> > > > referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

> > > >

> > > > The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and

> > > > apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early

> > > > stage which are responsible for the benefits.

> > > >

> > > > So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing

> > > > about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they

> > > > are not already consuming.

> > > >

> > > > It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot

> > > > longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively

> > > > robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in

> > > > humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to

> > > > play a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and

> > > > carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

> > > >

> > > > Ha!

> > > >

> > > > But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these

> > > > supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity

involved?

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>