what are the vitamin supplements everyone must take to stay healthy?

jrock645 said:
On that basis, you can’t trust an article written by a human posted anywhere. So then, how can you arbitrarily discount this one? Exactly what defines an article credible or not? Do you make the rules up as you go along?
Click to expand...

Anybody can go on reddit and claim anything they want to. What do you not understand about that? It's automatically credible because he listed articles? How do you know those articles support what he is even saying without reading them? If you want to have a scientific discussion, that is why peer-reviewed journal articles exist. As I said earlier, the reddit person seems to have posted only review articles, not actual research articles. That means those will then cite yet more sources. You need to follow it back to the original work, otherwise you get opinions and not facts.

There is nothing arbitrary about me discounting a reddit thread. If you want to believe random unchecked **** from the internet, go on then. If people are going to be lazy in their sources, then that's their own fault. Reading isn't that difficult.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Anybody can go on reddit and claim anything they want to. What do you not understand about that? It's automatically credible because he listed articles? How do you know those articles support what he is even saying without reading them? If you want to have a scientific discussion, that is why peer-reviewed journal articles exist. As I said earlier, the reddit person seems to have posted only review articles, not actual research articles. That means those will then cite yet more sources. You need to follow it back to the original work, otherwise you get opinions and not facts.

There is nothing arbitrary about me discounting a reddit thread. If you want to believe random unchecked **** from the internet, go on then. If people are going to be lazy in their sources, then that's their own fault. Reading isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...

I didn't just blindly follow what was written, I've done my own research and it is a well written passage - so I used it. And sources don't matter in the least. A valid idea is a valid idea regardless of where it comes from.

For your own personal satisfaction, the person who wrote that passage, while it is on Reddit, is likely more qualified to discuss these topics than any of us - he's a director of research for a breast cancer foundation and has been doing "evidence based medical research" for over a decade. His first citation, as he pointed out, is Reinhold Vieth, who has a significant number of studies on Vitamin D under his belt.

Also, keep in mind - not totally disagreeing with you. I'm the one that brought it up that it's a "hormone" to begin with - but ultimately it's more than a vitamin AND more than a hormone. Neither grouping really fits it 100%.

And the alcoholism thing is funny. I figured I could short hand. I didn't say it was the entire definition - but vitamin deficiencies lead to disease states.

Your distinction of "human" for vitamins is also interesting - because does that mean that a vitamin for a human isn't a vitamin for another mammal? For instance, is Vitamin C a hormone when discussing other, non-human animals?
 
Also, keep in mind, anybody can claim anything they want to - even in "peer-reviewed journals".

How many doctors do you know that believed that oxycodone is effective at treating chronic pain and have no addiction potential? Just because the idea came from a "credible" source doesn't make it valid.
 
HIT4ME said:
Also, keep in mind, anybody can claim anything they want to - even in "peer-reviewed journals".

How many doctors do you know that believed that oxycodone is effective at treating chronic pain and have no addiction potential? Just because the idea came from a "credible" source doesn't make it valid.
Click to expand...

Bull**** like this is exactly what I want to eliminate. Online "researchers" with zero textbook knowledge find crap on reddit and treat that as a replacement for actual research. Peer-reviewed journal data gets tested and if it's found to be false, it gets corrected or retracted. Reddit isn't held to the same standard, so you can keep saying the source doesn't matter all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

And yes there are some greedy doctors out there that cared more about money than what the actual data said. Their decisions were not based on a credible source; it was based on cash. That doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
What field of research are you in?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that I said I was in any field, nor did I realize I was incapable of having knowledge because I lacked a degree, job title or lab coat?

I am just a solid pubmed ninja who was taught to read and write, add and subtract by the second grade. No implied qualifications here. Question away.

But if that is your thing - the guy who wrote that passage has all of the above, and his first citation was written by a guy who has had more than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers on vitamin D published in the last 4 years alone.

Aleksandar37 said:
Bull**** like this is exactly what I want to eliminate. Online "researchers" with zero textbook knowledge find crap on reddit and treat that as a replacement for actual research. Peer-reviewed journal data gets tested and if it's found to be false, it gets corrected or retracted. Reddit isn't held to the same standard, so you can keep saying the source doesn't matter all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

And yes there are some greedy doctors out there that cared more about money than what the actual data said. Their decisions were not based on a credible source; it was based on cash. That doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
Click to expand...

First off, textbook knowledge isn't all that important. There is nothing in any textbook, anywhere, that was not first discovered by someone in the real world who had lacked the knowledge prior to their discovery. The information in text books is useful, but not a prerequisite to knowledge.

Second, why would you want to eliminate the sharing of any ideas at all? Right, wrong or otherwise? People should be able to do their research as best they can and learn. Improving the quality of the research is a valid goal, but to eliminate it in any form does not achieve that goal.

Third - the irony can be seen within your own posts. On one you are saying that you have seen plenty of research that was misrepresented and YOU disagreed with the presentation from the guy in the lab coat, and then you turn around and talk about the virtues of "peer reviewed journals"?

And you are completely ignoring the fact that the so-called higher standard of peer-reviewed journals has been flawed for a long time. There are countless skewed views in the peer reviewed journals based on financial interests of researchers and journals. This is why there are now efforts to register studies. There are cases where doctors went to those very journals and saw 36 studies showing a drug was safe and 3 showing there was a possibility for serious side effects (as an example). The doctors, rightfully, would have sided with the preponderance of evidence and weighted the safety of 36 trials over the negatives found in 3 trials...until they find out 30 studies did not get published because they didn't support the desired outcome.

Further - you want to question the highly qualified individual because he is on reddit, but he made claims and provided citations - yet you have merely made claims on here. Check his work. Feel free.

And I KNOW there are citations for your stance out there. I have seen them so I'm not even disagreeing, just bringing in both sides as it isn't cut and dry. So I feel like we agree and we are arguing anyway, so I'm sorry if I did something to rub you the wrong way. You're a smart guy and I respect your input and frankly, welcome your skepticism and appreciatethe debate. You can certainly help me learn.

As far as the greedy doctors - a lot were duped. I have a grandmother who is on opioids I fought with her doctor quite a bit over it. My aunt didn't want her to be in pain (not that I did either) and from the interactions I've seen with the doctor I would say she sincerely was doing what she thought was right.

Drug companies spent massive amounts of money to dupe doctors. They dont have time to assimilate and research and get everything they see in a day. They can barely spend time with their patients. Some doctors were probably just flat out wrong, some doctors were greedy and the manufacturers were pushing falsehoods.

The credible data the doctors relied on was from the pharma companies who conducted scientific studies and got peer-review and FDA approval. And they took that and made not-so-credible claims in addition to and doctors didn't probably always realize.

In the end - I do agree that taking something on reddit as fact and as your basis for knowledge without realizing it is an opinion can be treacherous. But that is NOT what I was doing. I've read a number of Vitamin D related studies...and organizing them and citing them takes an enormous amount of time. I found that on reddit and it did a really good job of summarizing what I would have pointed out, and actually added some things I hadn't considered. So, regardless of the fact is it on reddit or on a crumpled up piece of paper in the gutter and thrown away, or whatever -- it is well written, matches the data in the peer reviewed journals, is simplified, and has citations.

I recognized it as good because I HAD previous knowledge, not because the article itself was the basis for my knowledge.

And with a bit of digging I found that the person who wrote it is, in fact, highly qualified and his citations even more so.

Never discount an idea simply because of its source, and never accept an idea merely because of its source.

That may be on reddit and there may be a ton of junk on there...I get that...but that was a gem in a pile of crap.
 
HIT4ME said:
I didn't realize that I said I was in any field, nor did I realize I was incapable of having knowledge because I lacked a degree, job title or lab coat?

I am just a solid pubmed ninja who was taught to read and write, add and subtract by the second grade. No implied qualifications here. Question away.

But if that is your thing - the guy who wrote that passage has all of the above, and his first citation was written by a guy who has had more than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers on vitamin D published in the last 4 years alone.
.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for your CV. I asked what field your research is in since you said you did your own research.

Name the guy you keep referring to or post the reddit link. Is it Constatine Kaniklidis? If that's who you're talking about?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I didn't ask for your CV. I asked what field your research is in since you said you did your own research.

Name the guy you keep referring to or post the reddit link. Is it Constatine Kaniklidis? If that's who you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Correct. Good ol' Constantine. But his reference, who is probably more important, is Reinhold Vieth who wrote that first paper and made the case for it being a vitamin.

His assertion seems to be (I only have the abstract and some incomplete images of the full) that the view of Vitamin D as a hormone actually harms progress in Vitamin D research. But he also differentiates between the fact that Vitamin D itself is a vitamin and it is converted to a prehormone that is still seek as being vitamin D.

Vieth is the one I am saying has had all the Vitamin D studies piblished.
 
HIT4ME said:
I didn't realize that I said I was in any field, nor did I realize I was incapable of having knowledge because I lacked a degree, job title or lab coat?

I am just a solid pubmed ninja who was taught to read and write, add and subtract by the second grade. No implied qualifications here. Question away.

But if that is your thing - the guy who wrote that passage has all of the above, and his first citation was written by a guy who has had more than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers on vitamin D published in the last 4 years alone.
Click to expand...

HIT4ME said:
Correct. Good ol' Constantine. But his reference, who is probably more important, is Reinhold Vieth who wrote that first paper and made the case for it being a vitamin.

His assertion seems to be (I only have the abstract and some incomplete images of the full) that the view of Vitamin D as a hormone actually harms progress in Vitamin D research. But he also differentiates between the fact that Vitamin D itself is a vitamin and it is converted to a prehormone that is still seek as being vitamin D.

Vieth is the one I am saying has had all the Vitamin D studies piblished.
Click to expand...

You also claimed the person who posted that had qualifications. What exactly is Constantine's degree in and what is his "research" in since you claim he has a lab coat?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You also claimed the person who posted that had qualifications. What exactly is Constantine's degree in and what is his "research" in since you claim he has a lab coat?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on his high school and college transcripts, can never be too thorough, but you can see who the guy is pretty easily here:

Invalid Link Removed

His focus appears to be on cancer. And?
 
HIT4ME said:
I'm waiting on his high school and college transcripts, can never be too thorough, but you can see who the guy is pretty easily here:

Invalid Link Removed

His focus appears to be on cancer. And?
Click to expand...

You're the one presenting his reddit post as being by somebody who has education and experience as a researcher. From what I've seen so far, he has neither. He doesn't list much more than the title he gave himself as part of a not-for-profit breast cancer group, but looks like a blogger or medcomms guy. Does lying fall under your philosophy of "sharing of any ideas at all? Right, wrong or otherwise?"?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're the one presenting his reddit post as being by somebody who has education and experience as a researcher. From what I've seen so far, he has neither. He doesn't list much more than the title he gave himself as part of a not-for-profit breast cancer group, but looks like a blogger or medcomms guy. Does lying fall under your philosophy of "sharing of any ideas at all? Right, wrong or otherwise?"?
Click to expand...

First, who's lying? I am the one who put all the info out there to see and Constantine has his resume up and I don't see any lies - except you making assumptions, Do you even know who owns that foundation?

If I've made a mistake about the posters qualifications, no big deal - I put what I saw out there for everyone to judge. I also never said it was a peer-reviewed journal (oh yeah, I said reddit which is what set you off), I said it was an interesting article and I've explained that numerous times and you still don't seem to understand. And it's interesting because it is in line with the research. But the passage is well written, easy to understand, cited and from my own research into actual studies - it is accurate. And his citations have the qualifications that you seek even if he somehow doesn't. Ultimately you're going up against the opinion of a guy who's had a large body of peer-reviewed work published. It's a good article, better written than either of us could have done, and happens to be true because...

Second - what's your point? If the guy is wrong, why not show us how he is wrong rather than waste all your time trying to show us he isn't "qualified" in your eyes? You can use your peer-reviewed journals? Hell, if you want, I will even use peer reviewed journals. And if you need help finding things to back up your side, you let me know - more than willing to chip in.

Wait, are you qualified? Is that why you're not bringing anything to the table? Because you're afraid you won't be able to back it up?

So far you've made the statement that "Vitamin D is absolutely a hormone and not a vitamin" - without a single thing to back it up. And again - it's what I said to begin with but I couched it because it IS debatable. And then, I MERELY provided an interesting read about it, with references - and instead of countering either THAT guy OR me OR any of the ideas - you've attacked the source (That is really your biggest sign of ignorance) - without a single shred of any evidence countering any of the claims you say are not credible.

What you've really done is show us that only people without ideas fear ideas that aren't "approved" by someone smarter. I get ideas from this site all the time to try - I don't even know who half the people are in here, I certainly don't ask for their qualifications. I weight their opinions against my own knowledge and judgement.

So what do you have to add to the discussion brother? I always thought you had good ideas from what I've seen - I'd like to see them.
 
That's a ****ing cop-out. I never said his information was incorrect because of his experience. You presented him as an expert. You said he has the education and research experience, but that isn't true. You didn't read the articles he cited or present a single thing from them. You blindly believed some random reddit ******* because he put numbers next to what he was saying and that's naive. Digging in your heels is moronic. Saying that you don't care if the information is wrong or not, but you're still going to defend it as fact is openly lying.

And yes, I do know who owns that foundation. She's a patient and an advocate. What's your point?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
That's a ****ing cop-out. I never said his information was incorrect because of his experience. You presented him as an expert. You said he has the education and research experience, but that isn't true. You didn't read the articles he cited or present a single thing from them. You blindly believed some random reddit ******* because he put numbers next to what he was saying and that's naive. Digging in your heels is moronic. Saying that you don't care if the information is wrong or not, but you're still going to defend it as fact is openly lying.

And yes, I do know who owns that foundation. She's a patient and an advocate. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Well then, let's cut to the chase about who's lying outright. Now, you say you know the owner of the foundation and that it's a "she" - hmmm...that's interesting since you just said..."He doesn't list much more than the title he gave himself as part of a not-for-profit breast cancer group" - Well, he doesn't own the group but he's giving himself the title?

Do you have something personal against the guy?

I'm not copping out at all. And I didn't present him as an expert AT ALL. Your reading comprehension needs work. I may have misspoken because I can't prove that he has a degree and a lab coat. I have left him a message, but he hasn't agreed to let me look in his closet yet. And like I said - I haven't received his transcripts yet.

You are the one requiring qualifications and I never said that he was an "expert in vitamin D". This is written language so I can't speak more slowly - but I will try again - I said, he wrote an interesting passage - you questioned his qualifications, I pointed out that he seems to be qualified - he's done research in the field of medicine - but, as to my entire point from the beginning - qualifications aren't necessary for an idea to be right or wrong - his ideas are true and right and if you want qualifications - his own resume (which isn't good enough for you, fine) and the resume of the original citation alone in his article are qualifications you should love.

And I have read what I can obtain from the citations - I've admitted that.

Plus, as I've stated, but you can't seem to understand - I've done my own research into this using the peer-reviewed journals and the guy has an interesting, well thought out article that follows that research. If he didn't have ANY citations, I would have known that.

And how am I copping out? I've offered to help you with your own research brother. You aren't even trying. You're just arguing in circles for some reason? My guess is you spent a lot of money on an education and REALLY need to believe it means something.

Have you presented a single idea to show the IDEAS that Mr. Unqualified states in his passage are wrong? Or is "he wrote it on reddit" proof that it isn't true?

So, in the end - I'm not sure what you want to discuss or what you want to debate? I'm not digging my heals in about anything. I'm ok with being wrong, but I'm not sure what you're even presenting for evidence really?

So let's just call it - tell me what I can do to end this in a way that makes you happy?
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
Nah, for realz -

I'm wrong everybody. Constantine is an idiot. Only get your ideas from peer-reviewed journals, mmmmkay??

Don't read reddit, it's bad, mmmmkay??

Vitamin D is a hormone, not a vitamin.

(Wait - that's what I said to begin with - so does that still make me wrong? I'm confused.)
 
fightnews said:
I prefer to get my vitamins from food, There is some doubt on weather synthetic vitamin supplements can even be absorbed and used. That said I do take a folic acid supplement because I was once anemic from a lack of it and the doctor told I should. Also I believe in magnesium suplements
Click to expand...

Food and fruits are always a good source of vitamin. I prefer too.
 
Ricky10 said:
I have taken fish oil liquid for longer than I can remember and vitamin-D for the last 8 years or so.
Considering switching to Krill oil though...thoughts?

I believe Ecklonia Cava is one of, or possibliy is the strongest antioxidant known to man. It also has exceptional bioavailability and an impressive half-life. Definitely a supplement to consider for optimal health and anti-aging.

A trusted/legit probiotic is arguably one of the most beneficial supplements one could take as well.
Click to expand...

Taking vit D last one year
 
Research is bull Siht even peer reviewd stuff can be biased or come to false conclusions. You can pretty much find a study to support whatever you want. After seeing all the experts and stable geniuses walk back the "eat 6 small meals a day" bro science I'm taking all professionial advice with a grain of salt.


What do you guys make of the negative fish oil headlines that have been coming out this week calling it useless?
 
fightnews said:
Research is bull Siht even peer reviewd stuff can be biased or come to false conclusions. You can pretty much find a study to support whatever you want. After seeing all the experts and stable geniuses walk back the "eat 6 small meals a day" bro science I'm taking all professionial advice with a grain of salt.


What do you guys make of the negative fish oil headlines that have been coming out this week calling it useless?
Click to expand...

My first thought is....fake news. The news makes money off of clicks and drama, and they see enormous benefit from writing articles that say something novel. In the case of health it is easy for one side to be made novel only so they can turn around and reverse course when the original idea has become novel, and they just keep recycling readers.

There are articles about multi vitamins, vitamin D and fish oil coming out based on studies that show there is little or no heart health benefit. This is both obvious and ludicrous at the same time. If you have no deficiciencies, because you have a healthy diet, then these things obviously wont help because you already have them, and they won't benefit heart health. But if you dont have them, then your heart health in some cases has been shown to suffer in prior studies.

But I think the news also takes these studies and extrapolates that they don't help heart health as if that is the only measure of health, which is also short sighted.

I mean, what does broccoli do for your health if you were to measure the effects of eating it for 3 months or acutely?

On the other hand, people act like some of these things are panacea's and it is good to reign that in as well.
 
HIT4ME said:
My first thought is....fake news. The news makes money off of clicks and drama, and they see enormous benefit from writing articles that say something novel. In the case of health it is easy for one side to be made novel only so they can turn around and reverse course when the original idea has become novel, and they just keep recycling readers.

There are articles about multi vitamins, vitamin D and fish oil coming out based on studies that show there is little or no heart health benefit. This is both obvious and ludicrous at the same time. If you have no deficiciencies, because you have a healthy diet, then these things obviously wont help because you already have them, and they won't benefit heart health. But if you dont have them, then your heart health in some cases has been shown to suffer in prior studies.

But I think the news also takes these studies and extrapolates that they don't help heart health as if that is the only measure of health, which is also short sighted.

I mean, what does broccoli do for your health if you were to measure the effects of eating it for 3 months or acutely?

On the other hand, people act like some of these things are panacea's and it is good to reign that in as well.
Click to expand...

I agree I read an article about the review of many studies that claims there is no benefit to taking fish oil for heart health. Then the different news/click bait outlets turned it into "No benefit to health of any kind".taking fish oil.


If there is no benefit to heart health specifically then the pharma company that's running these commercials for their prescription, FDA approved fish oil pills have some explaining to do.
 
Multis I feel are needed these days because of the food industry. We don’t get nearly as much of the nutrients that our ancestors got from their food due to the way we produce and process foods. Magnesium is a perfect example. Most people don’t meet the daily requirements because it’s stripped from everything due to the way foods are processed. Also most people take magnesium oxide where about only 2 percent gets absorbed. Completely worthless yet almost all multis use this form. I’ve been paying more attention to preservatives and additives in foods and there are just so many horrible carcinogenic ingredients that people are consuming every single day not even realizing it
 
HIT4ME said:
My first thought is....fake news. The news makes money off of clicks and drama, and they see enormous benefit from writing articles that say something novel. In the case of health it is easy for one side to be made novel only so they can turn around and reverse course when the original idea has become novel, and they just keep recycling readers.

There are articles about multi vitamins, vitamin D and fish oil coming out based on studies that show there is little or no heart health benefit. This is both obvious and ludicrous at the same time. If you have no deficiciencies, because you have a healthy diet, then these things obviously wont help because you already have them, and they won't benefit heart health. But if you dont have them, then your heart health in some cases has been shown to suffer in prior studies.

But I think the news also takes these studies and extrapolates that they don't help heart health as if that is the only measure of health, which is also short sighted.

I mean, what does broccoli do for your health if you were to measure the effects of eating it for 3 months or acutely?

On the other hand, people act like some of these things are panacea's and it is good to reign that in as well.
Click to expand...

So true statement!
 
BlockBuilder said:
Multis I feel are needed these days because of the food industry. We don’t get nearly as much of the nutrients that our ancestors got from their food due to the way we produce and process foods. Magnesium is a perfect example. Most people don’t meet the daily requirements because it’s stripped from everything due to the way foods are processed. Also most people take magnesium oxide where about only 2 percent gets absorbed. Completely worthless yet almost all multis use this form. I’ve been paying more attention to preservatives and additives in foods and there are just so many horrible carcinogenic ingredients that people are consuming every single day not even realizing it
Click to expand...

Multis are always important!
 
BlockBuilder said:
Multis I feel are needed these days because of the food industry. We don’t get nearly as much of the nutrients that our ancestors got from their food due to the way we produce and process foods. Magnesium is a perfect example. Most people don’t meet the daily requirements because it’s stripped from everything due to the way foods are processed. Also most people take magnesium oxide where about only 2 percent gets absorbed. Completely worthless yet almost all multis use this form. I’ve been paying more attention to preservatives and additives in foods and there are just so many horrible carcinogenic ingredients that people are consuming every single day not even realizing it
Click to expand...

I’m not sure about that, people eat the way they do because they don’t want to know or just don’t care. The food is still available.
 
theguerillachemist posted top 5 supplements every bodybuilder should take, thoughts?

Ubiquinol 200-400mg
Arjuna extract 1500mg
NAC 1800mg
Fish oils 4-6g
Vitamin K2 90mcg
Hon mentions - Garlic, Curcumin, Ginger, Probotics
 
AdelV said:
theguerillachemist posted top 5 supplements every bodybuilder should take, thoughts?

Ubiquinol 200-400mg
Arjuna extract 1500mg
NAC 1800mg
Fish oils 4-6g
Vitamin K2 90mcg
Hon mentions - Garlic, Curcumin, Ginger, Probotics
Click to expand...
Silly. Unless he’s talking about someone using lots of things harsh on the liver, Creatine would be more useful for a “bodybuilder” than high-dosing NAC. And don’t give me that “but you can get it from meat” argument, because not many people eat that much meat year-round. Or is he only taking about “health-oriented” type supplements, not ergogenic-oriented ones? Because that would make some sense.

I’d add spirulina and Vitamin D if it’s the latter.
 
AdelV said:
theguerillachemist posted top 5 supplements every bodybuilder should take, thoughts?

Ubiquinol 200-400mg
Arjuna extract 1500mg
NAC 1800mg
Fish oils 4-6g
Vitamin K2 90mcg
Hon mentions - Garlic, Curcumin, Ginger, Probotics
Click to expand...

While only a very small number of low power studies have been done, ubiquinol form of Co-Q10 is very likely more effective than the ubiquinone form of Co-Q10 for using as a supplement. As always, tell your doctor if you're taking any supplements, as only they can test your actual circulating levels.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Silly. Unless he’s talking about someone using lots of things harsh on the liver, Creatine would be more useful for a “bodybuilder” than high-dosing NAC. And don’t give me that “but you can get it from meat” argument, because not many people eat that much meat year-round. Or is he only taking about “health-oriented” type supplements, not ergogenic-oriented ones? Because that would make some sense.

I’d add spirulina and Vitamin D if it’s the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Creatine is considered in making the energy muscles have to be compelled to work. Vegetarians and other inhabitants who have lower creatine levels when they start taking creatine supplements appear to urge additional profit than those that begin with a better level of creatine. Striated muscle can solely hold an exact quantity of creatine; adding additional won’t raise levels any longer. This “diffusion point” is typically reached within the first few days of taking a “loading dose.”
 
BlockBuilder said:
Multis I feel are needed these days because of the food industry. We don’t get nearly as much of the nutrients that our ancestors got from their food due to the way we produce and process foods. Magnesium is a perfect example. Most people don’t meet the daily requirements because it’s stripped from everything due to the way foods are processed. Also most people take magnesium oxide where about only 2 percent gets absorbed. Completely worthless yet almost all multis use this form. I’ve been paying more attention to preservatives and additives in foods and there are just so many horrible carcinogenic ingredients that people are consuming every single day not even realizing it
Click to expand...

just started using magnesium chloride
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top