Forum menu
Magnesium the night before in a fairly large dose otherwise I'd be contending with a migraine from hell post ride.
Oh and High 5 magnesium tabs in the bladder as well.
Superficial - I disagree with your post. There are many people who aren't 'fantastically well-off in this country' and you're doing them a disservice.
Do you consider that buying vit d is a waste of money? Your post would indicate that money is more important than good health which is of course absurd.
Presumably you've spent part of your fortune on having an array of blood tests to reassure yourself just in case you're branded the 'worried well' ?
😐
Magnesium, zinc and vit d at the moment. Thinking b12 may be worth it also.
I'm so far away from fantastically well off it's not even funny. What I choose to spend my hard earned on and which charities I support are none of your concern. I simply wanted to know if those who choose to take supplements have found a better value supplier.
And just to add to what CG says above, we are not talking vast sums of money here.
I take multi-vitamins, vit C, omega 6&9 and vit D. I steer clear of the supermarket stuff for the reasons given previously. But even buying good quality stuff costs me less than £20 a month.
Given how much people on here spend on their bikes, just to have the latest kit when what they've got is perfectly fine (me included) then less than £20 a month is small change. And if it contributes towards staying fit and healthy then its well worth it. And even if its only the placebo effect, does it matter. The mind has a powerful affect on the wellbeing of the body. So even if supplements do nothing more than make you feel better and that makes you healthier, then to my mind they serve their purpose.
At the end of the day it's personal choice.
Dai,
I tend to stick to Biocare or Lamberts as they were recommended to me by a nutritionist when i was ill.
So i normally just shop around on the web for the best price.
I usually find Bodykind or Dolphin fitness to be the cheapest.
even if supplements do nothing more than make you feel better and that makes you healthier
What if they don't make you healthier but they make some people think it doesn't matter about their unhealthy diet because they're taking supplements?
(Having said that, the same could be said of exercise: a colleague tucked into chips and beans for her lunch because she was going to circuits that night, despite trying to lose weight.)
As mentioned earlier I take Vit D over the Winter months and know that it staves SAD, maybe it is pacebo but if it works I will keep taking it.
My missus uses PurePharma and swears by them for general health.
I reckon we have a very healthy and varied diet for instance my fruit and veg combined isn't 5 a day it's closer to 10. We eat fish twice a week and lean meat 4 times, porridge for brekkie (with chocolate protein powder) mixed nuts and fresh fruit BUT still I can get plagued with SAD it's no nice - Vitamin D has eradicated it for me!
PS. We both take ZMA at night before bed and sleep is dramatically improved - no I'm not selling any 🙂
Wow. We've even got vitamin snobs now...
Dai - agree with FieldMarshall re Biocare and Lamberts. May I also add Jarrows Formula.
Yes, there are cheaper but I believe quality needs to be looked at, as mentioned by jonba.
I've been seeing magnesium mentioned a fair bit recently. As regards zinc, have seen that it should be taken with copper.
This may be of interest:
@ crikey - haven't you got some patients to deal with?? 😉
Oh god good, /edit or indeed, good god.... Diet, and only diet, please ignore totally bogus nonsense about vitamin D, zinc, iron insert whatever you've been conned into being 'deficient' in.
Total rubbish, the food you eat, and only the food you eat.
Just finished nights. It's interesting that we tried vitamin and trace element supplementation on ITU, but gave it up because of a lack of sensible evidence. We do use Pabrinex in people who are obviously malnourished, but no other stuff.
Do you consider that buying vit d is a waste of money? Your post would indicate that money is more important than good health which is of course absurd.
You've made a leap of logic there. Your assumption is that spending money on vitamins leads to good health? An assumption which is, at the very least, inaccurate and in fact if you read the above articles the very opposite [i]may[/i] be true ([i]My[/i] assumption is that you're healthy and young - apologies if that's not the case but I already covered excluding vulnerable people in my previous post). Vitamin D supplementation is probably the one with the most evidence behind it, but it's still far from conclusive. A recent Lancet article has shown no evidence of benefit on bone health. Admittedly there are some other reasons why vitamin D deficiency may be relevant but unless you have reason to suspect you might be deficient (I.e. risk factors or biochemical evidence) then I'm not sure why you would waste your money.
I'm so far away from fantastically well off it's not even funny. What I choose to spend my hard earned on and which charities I support are none of your concern.
How you rate your personal finances against others is a different matter though - My point is that (and I'm making an assumption here, correct me if I'm wrong) most people have a roof over their heads, food to eat and enough spending money that they can afford a car / a hobby / to go out / do things they enjoy. By any realistic metric, we are very well off compared to people in this country from just a couple of decades ago. In the example Field Marshall gives, £20/month or £240 / year on something that has no health benefit beyond placebo and in fact may make you die earlier? That's absurd.
Lamberts as they were recommended to me by a nutritionist when i was ill.
I prefer Benson and Hedges
there are some other reasons why vitamin D deficiency may be relevant but unless you have reason to suspect you might be deficient (I.e. risk factors or biochemical evidence) then I'm not sure why you would waste your money.
Scotland. Low levels of Vitamin D, statistically high levels of MS.
Since my own wife is apparently trying to con me with "totally bogus nonsense" maybe I should ask my good mate, diagnosed with MS at 35, now practically blind in one eye and likely doomed to an early death, if he thinks it's a waste of money?
There is a good reason that the government actively recommends Vitamin D supplements to all children under 5 and pregnant women. Really quite a lot of us would benefit from it:
"A recent nationwide survey in the United Kingdom showed that more than 50% of the adult population have insufficient levels of vitamin D"
-- http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.b5664
Scotland. Low levels of Vitamin D, statistically high levels of MS.
Indeed. I'm not sure how informed your mate is, but Omega 3 as fish oil is definitely worth a punt as well as an extremely low sat fat diet.
S**** has his fans and detractors, but IMHO he was definitely onto something - http://www.s****msdiet.org/20years
I just Googled vitamin D supplements for young children, because I'd not heard of it despite having reasonably young kids; looks like it was only introduced as guidance in 2012.
The page also pointed out that not everyone with a VitD deficiency will get a disease thought to be related to it, and that not everyone with one of those diseases was it cause by VitD deficiency.
But, given what I read on there, VitD supplements might be a reasonable idea, especially for darker skinned people in more northerly latitudes. Although, if that's the case it seems strange that the guidance essentially says not to bother with supplements after the age of five...
Oh, that page also warned against long-term use of multi-vitamins as vitamin A is toxic in large doses, so multi-vitamin users could be poisoning themselves...
Ahh good old STW. Have we posted up that the world is still flat?
Put down the crack pipe, the amount of evidence for vitamin D supplementation vs against is laughable.
Next someone will post up that the traditional food pyramid is the healthiest diet 😆
But, given what I read on there, VitD supplements might be a reasonable idea, especially for darker skinned people in more northerly latitudes. Although, if that's the case it seems strange that the guidance essentially says not to bother with supplements after the age of five...
IIRC existing guidance is about preventing rickets (spelling). UK guidance is under review and may include consideration for autoimmune conditions in the future.
Put down the crack pipe, the amount of evidence for vitamin D supplementation vs against is laughable.
Maybe for general health, but it has its applications.
List of peer-reviewed references at the bottom of this link.
http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/Recovery-Program/Sunlight-and-Vitamin-D/
Of course, there is also the issue of funding RCTs for the benefits of Vit D by big pharma.
IIRC existing guidance is about preventing rickets (spelling).
As I and my children* don't have rickets, can I safely assume that I and they get sufficient vitamin D in our diets and from sunlight?
*and my parents and grandparents, despite my granddad being Scottish
As I and my children* don't have rickets, can I safely assume that I and they get sufficient vitamin D in our diets and from sunlight?
I think you need to read what you can and make your own choices - but it's definitely not all about rickets any more.
What i find amusing is that the organisations who claim that supplements are of no benefit are the same ones that tell you that you must take a whole host of drugs to lower your risk of heart disease, stroke etc when there is masses of evidence showing that exercise and a good nights sleep are just as effective.
If you were at all cynical you'd almost think that the whole British medical system/government health organisation was being controlled by the big pharmaceutical companies. 😆
As has been said you need to review the "facts" and make your own mind up. And also find what works for you.
What i find amusing is that the organisations who claim that supplements are of no benefit are the same ones that tell you that you must take a whole host of drugs to lower your risk of heart disease, stroke etc when there is masses of evidence showing that exercise and a good nights sleep are just as effective.
What i find amusing is that the organisations who have a great deal more responsibility to the public can only use the best research that is available to make recommendations based on that research [s]claim that supplements are of no benefit[/s] and are the same ones that tell you that you that research suggests that you can [s]must take a whole host of drugs to[/s] lower your risk of heart disease, stroke etc when there is masses of evidence showing that exercise and a good nights sleep are [s]just as effective[/s] pretty useless when you already have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, atherosclerosis and so on.
As has been said you need to review the "facts" and make your own mind up. And also find what works for you.
Of course, we also pay an awful lot of money for research and for medical training to allow people to understand and apply the things we find out about, but yes, you find out what works for you...
As has been said you need to review the "facts" and make your own mind up. And also find what works for you.
Or, stop trying to chase the latest fads and phases and stick to eating and exercising sensibly. All that they're doing is making small changes to the last few percentage point chances that you'll develop some condition or other rather than changing absolute certainties.
Maybe for general health, but it has its applications.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm talking about the overwhelming amount of research in favour of vit D supplementation for people who don't get enough sunlight all-year round.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm talking about the overwhelming amount of research in favour of vit D supplementation for people who don't get enough sunlight all-year round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D
/p>
As with so many 'simple' things, there's rather more to it than that.
[quote> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D
/p>
As with so many 'simple' things, there's rather more to it than that.
I can tell you have really done your research posting links from wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Guess I had better stop drinking water!
I can tell you have really done your research posting links from wiki
..and you'll be telling me all about the research you've done into the toxicity of Vitamin D will you?
..or maybe not?
I'm pointing out that the situation is not as simple as is being portrayed.
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give up but I don't think it would make much difference.
..and you'll be telling me all about the research you've done into the toxicity of Vitamin D will you?..or maybe not?
Anyone who has done any research into vit D will know that it is [i]possible[/i] to have too much. Varies depending on who you listen to, but under 10'000 iu is generally considered safe.
I'd assume the majority of people who consider supplementing anything would realise it is possible to overdo it, just like drinking water.
A bit of common sense generally helps in these situations, although because this is STW, that can sometimes be lacking.
Anyone who has done any research into vit D will know that it is possible to have too much. Varies depending on who you listen to, but under 10'000 iu is generally considered safe.I'd assume the majority of people who consider supplementing anything would realise it is possible to overdo it, just like drinking water.
A bit of common sense generally helps in these situations, although because this is STW, that can sometimes be lacking.
The situation, therefore, is not as simple as is being portrayed, as I said before you had to comment on the use of Wikipedia?
The situation, therefore, is not as simple as is being portrayed, as I said before you had to comment on the use of Wikipedia?
Most things in life are not simple. Posting wiki articles about toxicity of vitamins is like posting articles of water toxicity, a waste of time.
Let me guess you either work in traditional medicine or believe in it wholeheartedly?
Medicine is a bit like religion, lots of dogma and black and white thinking. I cannot really be arsed with getting into a debate about supplementing certain vitamins.
To the OP and everyone else who is interested, do some research, look at both sides of the picture and make your own mind up.
the organisations who claim that supplements are of no benefit are the same ones that tell you that you must take a whole host of drugs to lower your risk of heart disease, stroke etc when there is masses of evidence showing that exercise and a good nights sleep are just as effective.
If you're referring to NICE, then you're absolutely right - a lot of people would be better off if they did some exercise, lost weight and reduced their risk factors that way, and NICE do recognise that in their guidance. Fact is a.) most people don't stick to exercise plans for any length of time and b.) their risk is still reduced further by the drugs.
Most things in life are not simple. Posting wiki articles about toxicity of vitamins is like posting articles of water toxicity, a waste of time.
Agreed. That wiki article on Vit D states: "Based on risk assessment, a safe upper intake level of 250 µg"
[url= http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins-minerals/Pages/Vitamin-D.aspx ]NHS suggest [/url]a 10 µg supplement.
So basically that means your argument is.. "Ooh if you take more than 25 times the recommended amount every day then it might do you harm. So it's not really that simple!"
As kudos says, same goes for water. And just about anything else!
Most things in life are not simple. Posting wiki articles about toxicity of vitamins is like posting articles of water toxicity, a waste of time.
Are you saying that water toxicity doesn't occur then?
Medicine is a bit like religion, lots of dogma and black and white thinking. I cannot really be arsed with getting into a debate about supplementing certain vitamins.
That's because, in this day and age, the blinded randomised control trial is considered a gold-standard. There are things that simply [i]are[/i] black and white. However, for some situations, we simply don't know what's wrong / right and I think most physicians would be the first people to admit when we genuinely didn't know the answer to a question.
"I can't be bothered to argue" isn't an argument btw.
Most things in life are not simple. Posting wiki articles about toxicity of vitamins is like posting articles of water toxicity, a waste of time.
I am, as I have suggested before, pointing out that the situation is not as simple as it is being portrayed.
Let me guess you either work in traditional medicine or believe in it wholeheartedly?
Why is what I do an issue?
Medicine is a bit like religion, lots of dogma and black and white thinking.
Flawed though it may be, it is the best bet we have at present and is continually trying to get better at what it does.
I cannot really be arsed with getting into a debate about supplementing certain vitamins.
Your presence here would suggest you are talking shite.
Are you saying that water toxicity doesn't occur then?
I think he is saying (rightly IMO) that claiming that "things aren't so simple" because huge amounts of regular vitamin D are bad for you is a [i]little[/i] spurious.
Most folk would accept that drinking water is good for you, despite the fact that drinking huge amounts would kill you.
See also: practically anything ingested to an extreme level. 😀
But people seem quite content to suggest vitamin supplementation, and in some cases over and above any 'recommended' daily intake yet no thought is given to the effects that may occur from such actions.
As noted above, there is research which suggests that vitamin use is not without harm, yet none of the advocates seem to urge any caution.
So, ad nauseam; it's not as simple as is being portrayed.
Ironically, we're arguing over Vitamin D, which is actually the one supplement with some evidence that some (otherwise-healthy) people are likely to need. We've just glossed over all the bullshit around Iron/Vitamin B/C/Zinc/Selenium/antioxidants etc which was the original focus of the thread.
I'm sure there would be more money in being a quack, rather than an actual, doctor. I'm saying extreme quantities of argon gas are the Next Big Thing. It works for me and anyone who argues is just an arrogant puppet of The Man.
[url=http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24563590]enough said[/url]
First let me FTFY:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24563590 ]enough said[/url]
Secondly can I point out that it says the same as was said earlier: overdosing on vitamins is bad for your (duh!). That's not the same as saying vitamins are bad for you (duh!). He even mentions [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24464774 ]over-dosing on water[/url] - as was mentioned earlier.
Also note that the article specifically mentions the NICE Vitamin D advice:
Vitamin D for all pregnant and breastfeeding women, children aged six months to five years, people aged 65 and over and for people who are not exposed to much sun, for example people who cover up their skin for cultural reasons, or people who are housebound for long periods of time.
Most of us don't get enough sun. The weather is crap and we sit in offices all day long.
"Healthy diet" should be enough? Hmm.. from the article..
Vitamin D - needed for strong teeth and bones; found in margarine and oily fish
That doesn't sound much like my diet. Yours?
Yes I eat oily fish. Not margarine.