balanced diet vs. vitamins

[salty dog]

I'm looking for advice on vitamins. will i get all of my vitamin needs from a well balanced diet? can i still benefit from a multivitamin? Or is it better to take individual vitamins tailored to ones specific needs? and lastly how does one determine those needs? thanks for any input or advice.

 

[JJones75]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

personaly i don't think that vitamins is the type of thing you can overdoes on (some minerals yes)

I eat a pretty well balanced diet and still take alot of extra stuff.

multi vitamin , 2x a day
1000mg Vit-C , 3x a day
50mg Zinc , 1x a day
2000mg omega-3 oil , 6x per day
2000iu Vit-D , 6x per day
1000mg calcium , 6x per day
1000mg Milk Thissel , 2x a day
400mg Red Yeast Rice extract , 3x a day

I also drink apple cider vinigar 3x a day as well as 16 oz cranberry juice

 

[head2h2o]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: clr537</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking for advice on vitamins. will i get all of my vitamin needs from a well balanced diet? can i still benefit from a multivitamin? Or is it better to take individual vitamins tailored to ones specific needs? and lastly how does one determine those needs? thanks for any input or advice. </div></div>

You have to start with a good diet. Supplementation will not offset the effects of a poor diet and lack of exercise (I realize that you did not ask about the exercise, but it's important so I threw that in). However, with that said, you will not likely get all of the vitamins and minerals that you require to support your daily needs by diet alone. Bar none the best approach to find out what your nutrient needs are is to have them tested. The two most legitimate and scientifically validated ways to go about this are through white blood cell proliferation (www.spectracell.com) or measuring of organic acids (www.metametrix.com). White blood cell proliferation is a blood draw, but far superior to serum values of vitamins and minerals. Either of these mechanisms will tell you what your exact nutrient status is. I prefer the white blood cell (WBC) proliferation as it uses living tissue (the WBC) and it tests you against your cells ability to proliferate in the presence of absence of that nutrient and not just against a range. You can also pick up indications for nutrient deficiencies and the need for supplementation via physical exam, but you have to work with someone trained in this area that knows what they are doing. After the deficiencies are identified, the best way that I have found clinically to address them is to use a base multivitamin coupled with targeted nutrition to address the specific nutrient deficiencies. After 4-6 months, the tests should be ran again to insure that the deficiencies have been corrected. If this has occurred, then you can move to using a multivitamin that is well balanced and contains ideal forms of the vitamins and minerals. If you find a product that uses minerals from a company called Albion, you will likey have a good product. These guys are the leader in chelated minerals, but they only supply to other nutrient companies and don't make their own products. The reason that you would want to use a multi while addressing specific deficiencies is to make sure that all the nutrients are staying balanced. For example, you should never take B12 or folate without taking them together. Taking either of these nutrients alone has the potential to induce a deficiency in the other. Same can be said for taking high amounts of zinc which are known to deplete copper, though copper is not one of the more common deficiencies seen, at least in my area.

Once your nutrients are at ideal levels, then you can look to have your tests ran about once per year for maintenance. Of course everyone's situation is different, but I would also deter the use of some of the medicinally oriented botanicals / herbs long term. These generally don't help long term and in some cases deplete nutrients. This is not downplaying the benefit of them, just saying sue relative to your heatlh and needs. As an example, red yeast rice extract, which is commonly used for cholesterol reduction can reduce CoQ10, which is needed for energy production in the electron transport chain. Moreover, elevated cholesterol is an indication for systemic inflammation most often and is better addressed through identifying the source of the inflammation and taking care of that.

If you want to find a doctor in your area that is qualified to help you with your questions, go to the following websites and research the docs in your area.

www.acbn.org
www.functionalmedicine.org

 

[salty dog]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

thank you sir. I hope this helps others as well.

 

[Patriot Prepper]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

It's hard to get the vitamins and minerals you need from food. Our crops are grown on depleted soil, which means the minerals are missing. Cheap artificial fertilizer only replaces three minerals. Supplementing your diet with vitamin/mineral supplements is needed for optimal health. However, the quality of the supplement and the levels are hard to establish. The formulas are only an estimate of a person's requirements. Taking too much of a vitamin and create a mineral imbalance, etc. There is not way to know what your body needs. Blood tests do not work. Tissue/hair mineral analysis is about the best method for determining your nutritional needs regarding vitamins and mineral. So take the best quality you can afford - because that is all you can do as far as vitamins and minerals. Then stop eating junk food, sugar, etc. Control stress, get plenty of sleep and rest, exercise, add a few supplements like fish oil, probiotics, Coenzyme Q10, eat a healthy diet of natural foods, and stay positive. That's about all you can do. But it will pay off. Stay healthy.

 

[BKS]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

Unless you have a very limited diet, like you only get cals from one food source, its pretty uncommon to have a vitamin/mineral deficiency. City water supplies have minerals added to them and most all processed foods are vitamin enriched. About the only vitamin that would be a problem would be vitamin D, and, I know their not vitamins, but omega 3 fat and calcium. If you don't drink milk or eat fish, and you never go outside, you might get deficient in those. Decent protein poweders are vitamin enriched as well. Its not like you ever hear about people getting scurvy anymore. But, as JJones said, its not going to hurt you to have all bases covered.

 

[spaniel]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">personaly i don't think that vitamins is the type of thing you can overdoes on </div></div>

This is not true at all. Do some real research (respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, not supplement rags). There are two types of vitamins; fat-soluble and water-soluble. Fat-soluble vitamins (like vitamin E) linger in the body much longer than water-soluble, which flush out with urine. Multiple studies have shown that high doses (within the range of people taking vitamin-specific supplementation) of fat-soluble vitamins lead to higher risk of cardiac events. Supplementing calcium has also shown to increase risk of heart attacks, and iron supplementation by men without evidence of deficiency can increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's.

You have to have a pretty poor diet to develop deficiency of common vitamins. A basic multivitamin may not hurt you, but downing large quantities of any vitamin is not proven to do anything positive for you. Mega-doses of antioxidants previously touted have been shown to do no good, and possible harm, as well.

 

[head2h2o]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

It still amazes me how much the nutrition industry is like the Wild West, were almost anything goes. I continue to find it humorous with regard to some of the information that is promoted as fact when it is little more than hersay or opinion. The reality is that clinical nutrition is a real part of our healthcare system, though limited for various reasons which are not worth discussion at this point. Nutrition is science and simply nothing more than biochemistry. If you are not pulling your information from and basing your comments from peer review literature, then your are only tauting beliefs and not science. Concrete nutrition information can be found in journals such as the following that have been reviewed by a body of professionals as opposed to the newsstand publications which generally have a secondary motive beyond disseminating information.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Advances in Nutrition

Journal of Nutrition

Nutrition Notes

European Journal of Nutrition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Patriot Prepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There is not way to know what your body needs. Blood tests do not work. Tissue/hair mineral analysis is about the best method for determining your nutritional needs regarding vitamins and mineral. </div></div>

This is only partially correct. Hair analysis has shown utility in assessing toxic metals, but the jury is still out on using it to assess essential elements. It appears that there are still complicating factors, most notably how the sample is analyzed. At current there is not universal standardization for this process.

Quantitative analysis of toxic and essential elements in human hair. Clinical validity of results.

As for blood tests, it is in general dependant on the media that you are using. If by blood you are referring to serum, then yes, nutrient levels are most often poorly assessed by this media. However, if by blood you mean living tissue such as lymphocytes, or white blood cells, then you would be incorrect to say that blood tests do not work. In fact, even though serum levels are less than ideal most of the time, literature does support measurement of them in certain clinical scenarios.

Functional vitamin B12 deficiency

Homocysteine lowering with folic acid and B vitamins in vascular disease

This one even came out of the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably one of the most respected medical texts in the United States, if not the world.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless you have a very limited diet,. . . .its pretty uncommon to have a vitamin/mineral deficiency. </div></div>

Actually it is relatively common to have a nutrient deficiency. Unless you are looking at standardized labs, you would have no knowledge of the fact that the average individual has about 4 nutrient deficiencies at the initial time of testing, as performed through lymphocyte proliferation, sometimes many more. It is hardly necessary to have scurvy, beri beri or any other nutrient deficiency related disease to justify the need for targeted nutritional supplementation. This is akin to saying that you must begin having peripheral neuropathies or gangrene, findings consistent with advanced / fragile diabetics, before you begin to take action on suboptimal glucose levels. This is illogical thinking.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ATH</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have to have a pretty poor diet to develop deficiency of common vitamins. A basic multivitamin may not hurt you, but downing large quantities of any vitamin is not proven to do anything positive for you. Mega-doses of antioxidants previously touted have been shown to do no good, and possible harm, as well. </div></div>

Actually diet alone is only one factor that can drive nutrient deficiencies. Exercise, stress, lack of sleep, age, etc. are all potential inducers of nutrient deficiencies. The key with supplementation is to balance your intake based off of your needs. This is determined by the testing. As to the antioxidants being shown to cause harm, this was mostly in a smoking population, and also has since been shown to be related to the fact that single antioxidants were given. This is not the proper application of supplemental antioxidants which should be given in balanced, established ratios so as to prevent disturbance of the "antioxidant pool" as opposed to single nutrients. More recent research clearly shows that the use of phytochemicals as antioxidants are very potent therapuetic agents in almost all chronic disease states and do not run the risk of imbalancing the "antioxidant pool", but rather appear to add balance to it.

For more information and validation of the above comments, I would refer you to two sites.

1. SpectraCell Laboratories Clinical Education Center
2. PubMed (PubMed is the site where all the medical journal abstract are housed.)

I would implore you to spend a little time on these websites, as well as other creditable sources, if you so desire to have a better grasp of nutrition.

 

[uhcoog1]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

Our bodies have a difficult time absorbing vitamin pills and supplements. It is best to get all vitamins and minerals from food.

God made food's with the appropriate amount of vitamins and minerals in them- when they get processed, some of these are stripped out. The food processors add back vitamins and minerals, but the absorption is low. Eating natural food is the best way to provide your body with what it needs. (not that I do, but I try, sometimes)

If you're concerned about the vitamin and mineral deficiencies, then get it tested. I had a saliva test not too long ago to test a few of my hormones, which were all right where they needed to be. $150 to know for certain. My doctor is out of dallas, and I didn't have to go see him for him to order the test.

 

[BKS]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

head2h2o, you must have not read this part of my post,
"About the only vitamin that would be a problem would be vitamin D, and, I know their not vitamins, but omega 3 fat and calcium. If you don't drink milk or eat fish, and you never go outside, you might get deficient in those."
I thought we were all talking about people that are physically active, probably taking a protein sup, and eating somewhat healthy, not some old fart or office worker, this is the fitness forum. These are the vitamins/nutrients that I see "healthy/active people" still have deficiencies in.
And if you don't pay for pubmed, you only get to see the abstract, which doesn't tell you everything. And a lot of the articles on pubmed are shit anyway. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is all true.
And for antioxidants, it looks like too much reduces muscular power, which is important to all us fitness people who are not in a hospital bed.
Thanks for the lecture.

 

[head2h2o]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">head2h2o, you must have not read this part of my post,
"About the only vitamin that would be a problem would be vitamin D, and, I know their not vitamins, but omega 3 fat and calcium. If you don't drink milk or eat fish, and you never go outside, you might get deficient in those."
</div></div>

Actually I did read this part and it still is as illogical as it was the first time that I read it. According to your post, you are suggesting that vitamin D, omega 3's and calcium are the only nutritional cofactors that one might become deficient in. This is just wrong. Take the time to follow the numerous links that I posted above to show the multiple impacts of suboptimal and deficient nutrients and to further educate yourself on this topic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I thought we were all talking about people that are physically active, probably taking a protein sup, and eating somewhat healthy, not some old fart or office worker, this is the fitness forum. </div></div>

Such an emotional comment clearly shows your lack of understanding about biochemistry and exercise physiology. It appears that your assumption is that nutrient deficiencies can only arise by virtue of a poor diet. Again, I provided links in the above post and made the point that nutrient deficiencies are secondary to multiple factors, not just poor diet. Some of these include age, poor gastrointestinal assimilation, stress, lack of sleep, exercise, etc. Those who exercise typically have nutrient deficiencies by virtue of a few mechanisms which may include:
1. Increased need for energy production - B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, Folate, B12, Magnesium, Iron, and Alpha lipoic acid are required among others
2. Increased free radical generation due to increased activity of the electron transport chain. This entire process is called oxidative phosphorylation. It makes energy, but it also creates a lone electron for which antioxidants are needed to quench so as to inhibit the oxidative process.
3. Increased tissue breakdown and the need to heal tissue at a higher rate. B vitamins and minerals are critical for this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> These are the vitamins/nutrients that I see "healthy/active people" still have deficiencies in.
</div></div>

If you would care to reveal your assessment method and the controlled environment in which you perform this activity, maybe we could converse on an even playing field. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And if you don't pay for pubmed, you only get to see the abstract, which doesn't tell you everything. And a lot of the articles on pubmed are shit anyway. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is all true.
</div></div>

Thank you for adding such an intellectually stimulating comment to this discussion. I am sure that this serves the original posters questions very well. If you are going to make a comment that criticizes a regarded information source, at least post a creditable reason(s) why and an alternative for us to look up information to use that is not opinion based. If you would not mind, please provide us links to those articles on the site for which you think are fecal material and the reason why they are not worth considering in a scientific debate. Also, please try to make your rebuttals as accurate as possible. It is true that pubmed is not free for a majority of the articles, but there are many FULL TEXT articles on the site that are free. Equally, the purpose of the study and the findings are clearly stated in the abstract. As for whether or not the peer reviewed method is the best method, it is currently the "gold standard" for how valid scientific information is held accountable and published. If you are referring to some of the information that has been published on how drug companies have skewed data, then yes, I will concur that this has taken place and may blemish the findings of some studies. But this is an exception rather than the rule and has nothing to do with the journals and literature that are studying nutrition.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And for antioxidants, it looks like too much reduces muscular power, which is important to all us fitness people who are not in a hospital bed.
</div></div>

Again, I must point out that this is an emotionally driven comment with no attached evidence for justification. The comments I made above clearly illustrate the physiological mechanism by which there is a need for antioxidants in the athletic population, as well as other populations. If antioxidants are imbalancing the "antioxidant pool", this will promote the generation of pro-oxidants, or free radicals, which will over time create an inflammatory process, tax the neuroendocrine system and reduce strength. If you recall, the three systems that have to accommodate to promote muscular development (strength, power, size) are the nervous, endocrine and of course the muscular. Misguided antioxidant administration, most notable single antioxidants, would lead to this imbalance. On the other hand, administration of phytonutrients, or plant based antioxidants, doesn't appear to exert the same disruptive effect on the antioxidant pool and appear to in many cases resolve the imbalances that are present.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KansasMag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the lecture. </div></div>

You are welcome. I'm always happy to help the mis-informed.

 

[jawa]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

You should thank head2h2o for the lecture... And be happy he didnt charge you for it either. Him being a DOCTOR and all, he knows WTF is up... I have picked this guys brain over and over and he can cover anything in excess just off the top of his head. All chest beating aside, he is a extremely dedicated to his field, I know cause damn near everytime I call him to go shoot he's outta town at a damn seminar. lol

 

[head2h2o]

Re: balanced diet vs. vitamins

Thanks jawa. I definitely owe you a few range trips.