Re: reminder about supplements/micromanaging (was: More On Vitamin D)

[Guest guest]

Whenever this subject comes up I feel compelled to remind everyone about the questionable practise of “micromanaging” nutrient levels. Below is my standard comment. Besides the post cited below, there have been other posts from Jeff (one of our most respected and knowledgeable members) that supplementing may not be all it’s cracked up to be. I can repost those upon request. Caveat: I do supplement with Vit D and fish oil.

“I am reminded of Jeff’s post a while back about centenarians who were not only old but healthy and vital. Some were found to have vitamin deficiencies. Moral: this may not be an important issue for living a long, healthy life. Since I read this I don’t concern myself with micromanaging anymore. Here is Jeff’s post”:

/message/27065

On 10/26/09 11:05 AM, " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi :

No. It is rather boring really. I always feel fine, I am sorry to have to report(!) One might expect in a situation like this to experience some kind of intestinal symptoms. But no symptoms at all of any kind in my case.

At the time I got the deficiency test numbers I did scan a few (probably weird) health discussion websites after doing a Google search. Someone at one of these sites said their test number was 60 - half my level. She reported a long list, perhaps 25 of them, of nasty symptoms which, when I checked out the symptoms of B12 deficiency, seemed to be a perfect match.

Perhaps symptoms of B12 deficiency do not appear until levels drop drastically low? I don't know.

Rodney.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > Hi folks:

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > I recently received an email from a member who apparently is

> > shy about

> > > > >>> posting here. He asked that if I thought it was worthwhile, would I

> > like to

> > > > >>> post a link he had found which provides a great deal of information

> > on

> > > > >>> vitamin D.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > I don't know much about the organization - GrassRootsHealth -

> > but it

> > > > >>> appears to be associated with a number of campuses of the

> > University of

> > > > >>> California. So it seems likely that it is reliable. There is some

> > pretty

> > > > >>> interesting data at the site, including the following chart which

> > shows, in

> > > > >>> graphical form, the reduction in risk for several diseases afforded

> > by

> > > > >>> various given levels of serum 25(OH)D.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>>

> > http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/download/disease_incidence_prev_chart_

> > > > >>> 101608.pdf

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > This is the site's home page link:

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > A couple of videos are also available there, presented by

> > Carole

> > > > >>> Baggerly and Cedric Garland, that I found worth watching,

> > discussing a

> > > > >>> possible 75% reduction in overall cancer incidence.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > Also on vitamin D, my (very enlightened) GP indicated that in

> > her

> > > > >>> opinion, once one had raised serum 25(OH)D to above 70 nmol/L, 2000

> > IU of D

> > > > >>> daily was the most she felt able to recommend. She also indicated

> > that she

> > > > >>> doubted a high serum vitamin D level would prevent flu. Of course

> > it is

> > > > >>> important for her, as well as all other physicians these days, to

> > do nothing

> > > > >>> out of the ordinary that might end up being a cause for lawsuits.

> > Adhering

> > > > >>> to the current conventional wisdom appears to be the best approach

> > to

> > > > >>> maintaining reasonable levels of malpractice insurance premiums.

> > Perhaps in

> > > > >>> a year or two, when/if the upper safe limit for vitamin D is raised

> > sizeably

> > > > >>> above the current 2000 IU level, she will feel safe in recommending

> > higher

> > > > >>> intakes.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > Also at the GrassRootsHealth website there is a notification of

> > an

> > > > >>> upcoming - ten days from now - full day seminar, featuring many of

> > the

> > > > >>> world's leading authorities on vitamin D, which is to take place at

> > the

> > > > >>> University of Toronto. I will be attending this meeting, fwiw. Of

> > course I

> > > > >>> will report any new information revealed at the meeting which has

> > not

> > > > >>> already been posted here.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >>> > > Rodney.

> > > > >>> > >

> > > > >> >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well maybe. I just hope none of us here ever suffers from a real B12 deficiency

and ignores it. It is a fact that until, not long ago, it was discovered that

taking supplements of B12 was the solution, B12 deficiency was a TERMINAL

disease.

When we have some serious experiments done (at least in mice, hopefully in

monkeys, they will never be done in humans) to find out how serious the effects

are of various degrees of deficiency for each important micronutrient we will

never know how big, or small, or negligible, the problem is. Or whether there

may be even a beneficial effect to be derived from micronutrient 'restriction'

as some have speculated.

I do not know of any serious experimental evidence that appreciable

micronutrient deficiencies are either trivial or beneficial. But if anyone has

such evidence we here would all, I think, be very keen to see it.

Of course, as always, we each do our best to review the evidence we are aware of

and place our bets accordingly. And hopefully we will be ready to change our

minds if evidence emerges that contradicts our previous views.

:^)))

Rodney.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > Hi folks:

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > I recently received an email from a member who

> apparently is

> >>> > > shy about

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> posting here. He asked that if I thought it was

worthwhile,

> would I

> >>> > > like to

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> post a link he had found which provides a great deal of

> information

> >>> > > on

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> vitamin D.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > I don't know much about the organization -

> >>>>>>>>>> GrassRootsHealth -

> >>> > > but it

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> appears to be associated with a number of campuses of the

> >>> > > University of

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> California. So it seems likely that it is reliable. There

> is some

> >>> > > pretty

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> interesting data at the site, including the following

chart

> which

> >>> > > shows, in

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> graphical form, the reduction in risk for several

diseases

> afforded

> >>> > > by

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> various given levels of serum 25(OH)D.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>

> >>> > >

> >>>

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/download/disease_incidence_prev_chart_

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> 101608.pdf

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > This is the site's home page link:

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > A couple of videos are also available there,

> presented by

> >>> > > Carole

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> Baggerly and Cedric Garland, that I found worth watching,

> >>> > > discussing a

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> possible 75% reduction in overall cancer incidence.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > Also on vitamin D, my (very enlightened) GP

indicated

> that in

> >>> > > her

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> opinion, once one had raised serum 25(OH)D to above 70

> >>>>>>>> nmol/L, 2000

> >>> > > IU of D

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> daily was the most she felt able to recommend. She also

> indicated

> >>> > > that she

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> doubted a high serum vitamin D level would prevent flu.

Of

> course

> >>> > > it is

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> important for her, as well as all other physicians these

> days, to

> >>> > > do nothing

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> out of the ordinary that might end up being a cause for

> lawsuits.

> >>> > > Adhering

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> to the current conventional wisdom appears to be the best

> approach

> >>> > > to

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> maintaining reasonable levels of malpractice insurance

> premiums.

> >>> > > Perhaps in

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> a year or two, when/if the upper safe limit for vitamin D

> is raised

> >>> > > sizeably

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> above the current 2000 IU level, she will feel safe in

> >>>>>>>> recommending

> >>> > > higher

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> intakes.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > Also at the GrassRootsHealth website there is a

> notification of

> >>> > > an

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> upcoming - ten days from now - full day seminar,

featuring

> many of

> >>> > > the

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> world's leading authorities on vitamin D, which is to

take

> place at

> >>> > > the

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> University of Toronto. I will be attending this meeting,

> fwiw. Of

> >>> > > course I

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> will report any new information revealed at the meeting

> which has

> >>> > > not

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >>> already been posted here.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > > Rodney.

> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>> > >

> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >

> >>>>>> > > > > >

> >>>>>> > > > > >

> >>>>>> > > > > >

> >>>>>> > > > > >

> >>>>>> > > > > >

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>> > > >

> >>> > >

> >>> > >

> >>> > >

> >> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

It's not like there isn't an IOM which has more data than anyone wants to

read.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490 & page=597

The need for supplements, as in pills, in a healthy person is arguable.

Personally I use almost none except a standard MV.

other interesting sites:

interesting discussions on Vit D and cancer:

http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php

supplement fact sheets:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Information_About_Individual_Dietar

y_Supplements.aspx

Office of dietary supplements:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/

Regards

Re: [ ]reminder about supplements/micromanaging (was:

More On Vitamin D)

Hi Francesca:

Well maybe. I just hope none of us here ever suffers from a real B12

deficiency and ignores it. It is a fact that until, not long ago, it was

discovered that taking supplements of B12 was the solution, B12 deficiency

was a TERMINAL disease.

When we have some serious experiments done (at least in mice, hopefully in

monkeys, they will never be done in humans) to find out how serious the

effects are of various degrees of deficiency for each important

micronutrient we will never know how big, or small, or negligible, the

problem is. Or whether there may be even a beneficial effect to be derived

from micronutrient 'restriction' as some have speculated.

I do not know of any serious experimental evidence that appreciable

micronutrient deficiencies are either trivial or beneficial. But if anyone

has such evidence we here would all, I think, be very keen to see it.

Of course, as always, we each do our best to review the evidence we are

aware of and place our bets accordingly. And hopefully we will be ready to

change our minds if evidence emerges that contradicts our previous views.

:^)))

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

I, of course, did not do the research into the nutrient requirements necessary

to maintain humans in the best health. No one person did. So all of us have to

rely on advice from some other, presumably a serious scientific, source which we

believe stands a good chance of being reliable.

My choice is to take the RDAs for all the various micronutrients as being based

on pretty serious science. If someone knows of another source, which they have

reason to believe is superior, then please let us all know about it. Naturally,

as scientific knowledge advances the advice will become gradually more and more

accurate. The B12 issue is a good example, where science eventually (in the

1920s) came to realize there was a major problem that showed a need for a

specific nutrient in larger quantities than some people were getting.

Of course there will be more refinements in the future. Probably many of them.

For example, some of us here think one of the next refinements will be to move

up the range for appropriate intakes of vitamin D. And particularly, to move

the 'upper safe limit' for it up substantially.

I also believe it may be appropriate to consume other substances which

scientific studies seem to be indicating have health benefits - despite the fact

the 'nutrient' responsible for the effect is not known. For me, tea is a

classic example of this.

But as regards the RDAs, I am currently making the assumption that it is

probably not desirable to be sizeably short of any of the well recognized

micronutrients. Granted the RDAs are calculated to be conservative on the high

side, to make sure the recommended amount will cover pretty much the entire

population. So for many of us, being, say, 20% deficient some particular

nutrient on a long term basis may not matter at all. 80% of the RDA, in some

cases, may be enough.

There is an additional problem that, while the RDAs are related to intake, not

everyone will absorb the same amount. So, even if we rigidly applied the RDAs

in our own dietary habits, some of us - those with absorption problems - are

likely to be deficient any nutrients we do not properly absorb. But that is an

argument that makes it even more important not to have a deficient intake.

But look, if it turns out that evidence proves that restriction of

micronutrients extends lifespan, then fine. What I am currently doing will have

been shown to be inadvisable. And I will change my view and my behaviour

.......... when persuasive evidence is presented.

It seems highly unlikely to me that this will ever be demonstrated, since there

are indications that it is the restriction of one (or perhaps two or three)

amino acids that may account for pretty much all the benefits of CR. There is

some science suggesting this, but it is far from being generally accepted. But

if this turns out to be true then the argument that because calorie restriction

is beneficial then micronutrient restiction will be also, seems very unlikely to

me to be true.

As previously noted, none of us can be categorical about this, on either side of

the argument, until some science is presented that supports it. Right now, it

seems to me, the best science on this subject is the RDAs. An opinion subject

to change without notice!

Rodney.

>

> Hi Rodney,

> It's not like there isn't an IOM which has more data than anyone wants to

> read.

> http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490 & page=597

>

> The need for supplements, as in pills, in a healthy person is arguable.

> Personally I use almost none except a standard MV.

>

> other interesting sites:

> interesting discussions on Vit D and cancer:

> http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php

>

> supplement fact sheets:

> http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Information_About_Individual_Dietar

> y_Supplements.aspx

>

> Office of dietary supplements:

> http://ods.od.nih.gov/

>

> Regards

>

> Re: [ ]reminder about supplements/micromanaging (was:

> More On Vitamin D)

>

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> Well maybe. I just hope none of us here ever suffers from a real B12

> deficiency and ignores it. It is a fact that until, not long ago, it was

> discovered that taking supplements of B12 was the solution, B12 deficiency

> was a TERMINAL disease.

>

> When we have some serious experiments done (at least in mice, hopefully in

> monkeys, they will never be done in humans) to find out how serious the

> effects are of various degrees of deficiency for each important

> micronutrient we will never know how big, or small, or negligible, the

> problem is. Or whether there may be even a beneficial effect to be derived

> from micronutrient 'restriction' as some have speculated.

>

> I do not know of any serious experimental evidence that appreciable

> micronutrient deficiencies are either trivial or beneficial. But if anyone

> has such evidence we here would all, I think, be very keen to see it.

>

> Of course, as always, we each do our best to review the evidence we are

> aware of and place our bets accordingly. And hopefully we will be ready to

> change our minds if evidence emerges that contradicts our previous views.

>

> :^)))

>

> Rodney.

>