Recommending a multi?

I

imported_edziu

Guest
Can anybody recommend a good high-potency multi which is affordably priced? I like what I'm currently taking, but I suspect I'm paying a heavy premium.

Any suggestions?

Note: I prefer high vitamin C content. I know all about the slight risk of possible negative affect on hypertrophy. I much prefer not getting colds in most years, which would have an even bigger negative effect on hypertrophy for me.

For any curious, here's what my wife and I currently take, at a cost of about $45/month per person.
http://www.drwhitaker.com/c/store_daily_prod_forwar_pop.asp
 
Twinlab's DualTabs looks nice while its Daily One (without Iron) isnt bad either.

I am taking Centrum but its more of convenience (local pharmacy) and price than quality that i am taking it.

Most multis packed everything into 1 capsule and many vitamins and minerals are wasted with such a flood of nutrients into the body at one go.

I dont mind taking 3 caps/serving if it means the micronutrients are utilised more effectively.
 
I use 1/2 of a shaklee Vita-Lea tablet. It has excellent bioavailability of the V/M's. It has 200% RDA of ACE's and a couple others with 100% RDA of most of the others, it also contains some flavinoids. I don't know if it is the "best" or whatever but I feel they are reputable.
 
If cost is an issue, go ahead with the "store brand" multi. Over the long haul, even poorer quality multis will meet your needs.
 
Price is an issue at the current $90/month I'm paying, but I don't need to drop to $10 for a 3-month supply. I still want some quality and confidence here.

The Daily One isn't as high-potency as I'd like. The Dual Tabs look interesting; I like a split-day formula. Comes to about $15/month for us. Their Sport Fuel formula is interesting, too, but double the price. Daily Two and Super Twin are in the middle, price-wise, and I can get the iron-free version for me, and the regular for the wife.

Right now, I also like Beverly's Super Pak, but it doesn't lend itself to split-day usage (one packet of assorted vitamins), and it ccomes out to $36/month. Packets are more convenient when travelling, eating out, etc.

Solaray Multi-Vita Mega-Mineral looks decent, as does their Spectro formula -- which get up to $40/month.

Anybody have anything positive/negative about any of these companies, or any other alternatives I should consider in the price range?
 
I'm not sure of their quality but I bought Member's Mark Daily Packs from Sam's Club. 90 packs were around $14. Each pack contains an iron free multi, vit e, b complex with c, and calcium
 
How important is the whole multivitamin thing anyways? I'll admit it's always been something I've neglected looking into to any extent. Is it a 'just in case' supplement, or is there concrete (not just theoretical) evidence to take a daily multi?

I'm also a bit weary of supplementing with the large amounts of trace vitamins and minerals and high dosages of anti-oxidants inherent in these pills. Isn't it overkill?
 
(LONG)
There is concrete evidence about the safety and benefits of vitamin supplementation. The effects are not miraculous, as many proponents would have you believe. They tend to be minor and relative, but significant. x% lower chance of catching cold, y% lower likelihood of contracting this disease, z% lower probability of suffering this disfunction. . .

There is always the debate about taking minimal amounts vs. 'mega' vitamins. The US RDAs are considered weak dietary guidelines, but efective minimums. Meeting the US RDA for a particular micronutrient will ensure that 99% of the population will avoid any outwardly detectable signs of deficiency. What level is optimal is another story, and one that has not been adequately researched and understood. Vitamin C is one of the more well-researched vitamins.

We know that the US RDA of 60mg/day prevents scurvy. (10mg a day will prevent scurvy in the vast majority of individuals.) We also know that it is safe in much higher doses, and that at those higher doses, there is a significant antioxidant effect, as well as reduced incidence and intensity of minor communicable diseases (colds and flus.) There are a host of other potential benefits; many sites list the many uses of C in the body.

Linus Pauling (Nobel laureate) was one of the fathers of modern vitamin supplementation, and a big advocate of large-scale vitamin C supplementation. He observed that, in nature, most mammals synthesize their own vitamin C and do not need to consume it. Dogs, cats, horses -- they all produce vitamin C. The exceptions are primates, guinea pigs, and humans. (Actually, people produce very small and irregular amounts of vitamin C, which is why tolerance to scurvy varies. Some sailors would just never get it, other would be much more sensitive.)
Pauling reasoned that if producing C is the norm for a mammal, then the three known exceptions must have lost the ability by chance. The reason it didn't kill off guinea pigs and primates is because their diets contain enough vitamin C to avoid the consequences.

Pauling wondered how much vitamin C people would be producing if they were producing it at the same levels as other mammals. He found that serum levels of vitamin C were very similar in the vast majority of mammals, and reasoned that the natural produced level would be optimal. He then experimented to find the level of supplemental C a human needs to take to induce the same serum levels of C, looked into the amounts of C tha would be consumed in a raw-food diet, etc. In the end, he recommended an optimal (whopping) 2000mg of C per day.

These days, even many advocates (like the Linus Pauling Institute) offer something a little lower as "optimal," provided it is spaced out during the day, and consider 2000mg a "therapeutic" dose (a an intentionally large dose intended to treat a condition). All the same, the recommended intakes are always many times the 60mg RDA.

Many other micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) are not nearly as well studied, and the effects in the body are complex and subtle. Consequently, most vitamins in a multi are at fairly low levels as "insurance" just to make sure you meet the minimums -- and that's exactly why many people take multis; as "insurance". Some vitamins, with better-studied effects, have larger doses where someone deemed appropriate. They are most liberal with the water-soluble vitamins, which pass quickly through the body. Consequently, shortages happen more quickly. Also, surpluses pass safely.

Toxicity is well within safety margins for multis. There are frequent rumors of vitamin D toxicitiy (D is a fat-soluble vitamin, and can be stored by the body), but the truth is that it's practically a non-starter, even at "therapeutic" doses, which normal people don't take.

The only REAL multivitamin toxicity concern is iron, which is rarely mentioned. A high-iron multi or other iron supplement can be dangerous, especially to children, who are liable to consume a whole bottle of vitamins, thinking they are candy. Iron poisoning is not as rare as it ought to be.

Speaking of iron, there are slight difference in vitamin formulations for men and women, irrespective of preganancy and lactation. I'm not talking about the herbal extracts thrown in by many manufucaturers (some may have an effect, most probably don't), but rather things like iron. In our society, men do not need supplemental iron. In fact, iron acts as an oxidant, and may contribute to coronary artery disease. We have no ready way of losing iron (barring a blood-loss injury or dietary disfunction causing blood loss in the intestines), yet most men get lots and lots in the diet, especially with the huge amounts of meat consumed.

Women are not in the same boat -- pre-menopausal women lose iron every month. So some multi formuals offer an iron-free version for men and post-menopausal women, and an iron-loaded version for younger women, or men with a need.
Whoops. . . I'm gonna go put a "long" at the top of this post. . . Rambling. . . Going now. . .
 
That was a good post, edziu, it answered a whole bunch of questions I was thinking of asking. However, just a few more;

How are the absorbability of multi-vitamins, I've heard stories about how they either don't get broken down, or if they do, that they only contribute to making 'expensive, flourescent urin'.

Also, has any research been done into how these vitamins and minerals interact. For instance, I notice that every multivitamin ive ever seen includes zinc, calcium, and magnesium. But doesn't calcium hinder the absorption of either zinc or magnesium? (cant remember which). Also, since many of the components of these multi's are fat soluble, does that mean we should take them with fat containing meals, or does it not make a difference?

Thanks for your help.
 
I might add that an excellent way of addressing high iron levels in the blood is to donate blood on a regular basis.

BB
 
Wedgewood -- good point. I'd actually been thinking that if I ended up with an iron-containing multi, I'd just make a point of giving blood more than once a year. Can't go too frequently, though.

KingP -- absorbability is an issue. Most critically, dissolvability. Some nutrients are best or mostly taken up in the duodenum, the part of the small intestine immediately after the stomache. If your tab doesn't dissolve quickly enough, it can pass the duodenum with the candy-coating still protecting the nutrients.

I prefer caplets for that very reason. Many solid multis dissolve well and quickly, though, especially those with a soluble outer coat and a powdery interior. The little briquette types tend to hold out a long time. I once tested a couple of multis in a cup of warm water (stirred periodically) to see how well they dissolved. Between family members, we had about five vitamins to try. One dissolved quickly; other were so-so; one stayed a rock. It was a discount pharmacy brand. After an hour, I dumped them in the sink; we had dinner for five, we washed the dishes and pots and pans. And then, in the strainer, found that discount pharmacy briquette!

As far as interactions -- yes, there are some. Some are bad, some are good. (Calcium absorption goes up in the presence of vitamin C.) We don't know them all, but we know they tend to be mixed together when we eat food, and absorption is better when taken with food, so that's usually the best gambit. It slows their passing, giving more time for absorption, and all the juices released to digest and absorb the food ensure that the vitamins get well absorbed, too.

Fat-soluble vitamins are carried by and stored in fats; it doesn't mean they have to be consumed with fats.

And as far as fluorescent pee -- it's a good sign. The color is usually brought on the water-soluble vitamins, like the B's. Bear in mind that urine comes from the kidneys, which filter the blood. If your vitamins come out in the urine, it means they were absorbed and your bloodstream was flush with vitamins, delivering them to your tissues. Certain water-soluble vitamins will always go through your system quickly; it's the nature of the beast. Water does that, too, but nobody argues that it's a waste to drink it just because you urinate it out!
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 05 2003,6:21)]The US RDAs are considered weak dietary guidelines, but efective minimums. Meeting the US RDA for a particular micronutrient will ensure that 99% of the population will avoid any outwardly detectable signs of deficiency. What level is optimal is another story, and one that has not been adequately researched and understood. Vitamin C is one of the more well-researched vitamins.
Click to expand...
No, not minimums and not nessecarily calculated from a level to prevent disease. Vit C for example has multiple areas they look into, from oxidant status, cancers(multiple types), flu, smokers, carnatine synthesis, periodontal health, CVD, catracts, asthma, even cognitive funciton/memory. as well as factors affecting bioavailability etc, potential side effects etc (dose response) blah blah blah. I think they have also gone into the measurement of upper levels, lower levels and adequate intake (or estimated average requirement EAR in different cultures) for vit C too. RDA was actually semi estimated using the EAR and a Coefficient of Variation of 10% as they have no data for the standard deviation of needs in humans.
So as you see there are multitudes of information that goes into developing a RDA for any nutrient, and some nutrients do not have a specific RDA because there isnt enough information for what is actually required. The value of the RDA is in general the EAR plus 2 SD, so the actual percentage of hte population is 97.5% of the population should be covered, not 99% (as the Institute of medicine of hte national academy of sciences puts it 97-98% :))
Optimal levels of vitamins/minerals will probably never be found and basically everything else is guesswork or at least a rather large extrapolation.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]We know that the US RDA of 60mg/day prevents scurvy. (10mg a day will prevent scurvy in the vast majority of individuals.)
Click to expand...
THe RDA used to be 60mg, but it aint now. The DRIs produced back in 2000 put the RDA up to

Men 19+ 90mg
Women 19+ 75mg
Pregnancy adds anohter ~10mg to the requirement.
I think there was somehting about smokers as well, potentially needing double the amount.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Dec. 07 2003,10:52)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 05 2003,6:21)]The US RDAs are considered weak dietary guidelines, but efective minimums. Meeting the US RDA for a particular micronutrient will ensure that 99% of the population will avoid any outwardly detectable signs of deficiency. What level is optimal is another story, and one that has not been adequately researched and understood. Vitamin C is one of the more well-researched vitamins.
Click to expand...
No, not minimums and not nessecarily calculated from a level to prevent disease.
Click to expand...
Oh-oh; I'm being called on something I haven't studied in a looooong time.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Quote
THe RDA used to be 60mg, but it aint now. The DRIs produced back in 2000 put the RDA up to

Men 19+ 90mg
Women 19+ 75mg
Pregnancy adds anohter ~10mg to the requirement.
Click to expand...

Quite right; I had to go look that up at the NAS web site. It wasn't promoted aggressively enough to get my attention in 2000. I'm very glad the analysis has been updated and upgraded.

Apparently, it wasn't promoted aggressively enough to get the FDA's attention, either. The FDA are the gestappo for labeling laws, and although they changed labeling from "RDA" to "%Daily Value", they still refer to 60mg as 100%, which is short of the requirement for either men or women.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think there was somehting about smokers as well, potentially needing double the amount.
Click to expand...

Yes; add 35mg.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The value of the RDA is in general the EAR plus 2 SD, so the actual percentage of hte population is 97.5% of the population should be covered, not 99% (as the Institute of medicine of hte national academy of sciences puts it 97-98%
Click to expand...

Again, quite right. I shouldn't have said "99%" when what I meant was "most." ;)

But back to our only real point of contention:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The US RDAs are considered weak dietary guidelines, but efective minimums
Click to expand...
No, not minimums and not nessecarily calculated from a level to prevent disease.
Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. Firstly, by advocates of supplements, they are considered weak guidelines. (A flimsy argument, I admit. But there's a good one coming.) And they are effective minimums.

The EAR (Estimated Average Requirement) is the intake value that is estimated to meet the requirement of half the healthy individuals in a life stage and gender group. That means, of course, that it FAILY to meet the requirement for the other half. I find an RDA of EAR+20% is weak at the outset. (At 231 pounds, I'm clearly in the "other" half, since their reference weight for adult males is 166 pounds.) And the whole concept of +20% is questionable, being based on known variability in the basal metabolic rate, which does not necessarily correlate to particular nutrient needs. (Though it may be the best yardstick available, it's still a lame yardstick.)

More importantly, what is their definition of Requirement? I read through the "Pathways". . . The two primary considerations are the availability of convincing evidence that a nutrient reduces the risk of important health outcomes (i.e., is proven to significantly reduces the frequency of a disease), or the presence of a clinically important deficiency disease or nutritional syndrom that is related specifically to inadequate intake.

So I would stand by calling them minimums calculated from levels to prevent disease. On top of that, little research funding goes out on basic vitamins and disease. Let's face it, nobody will make a protected profit from it. The more recent government studies on things like antioxidants were largely reactionary to the growing popular belief in the value of antioxidants -- an honest effort to put some real science behind the many pseudo-scientist/pill pushers out there.

I agree with you that Optimum levels may never be found, and that the whole exercise is rife with guesswork. The NAS also agrees that the whole exercise is rife with guesswork, but they believe they are exercising appropriate judgement. . . and they probably are, but only with regard to guessing appropriate levels to avoid deficiency and disease. If their criteria were to guess at levels which would be optimal for good health, I suspect the levels would be higher. Contraindications are few!
 
Sorry for the long post, Aaron. I respect your comments too much to reply without doing a little research, but then I felt compelled to write more as a result. . .

Once a windbag, always. . .
 
I think the real question is, "Which brands WON'T pass through undigested?"
wow.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 08 2003,7:49)](At 231 pounds, I'm clearly in the "other" half, since their reference weight for adult males is 166 pounds.) And the whole concept of +20% is questionable, being based on known variability in the basal metabolic rate, which does not necessarily correlate to particular nutrient needs. (Though it may be the best yardstick available, it's still a lame yardstick.)
Click to expand...
I still contend for the average person they are ok. And the actual amounts are worked out from an average energy intake. By common sense, as bodyweight goes up, energy intake and micronutrient intake also goes up..


The EAR+20% isnt quite that. it will be 1.96x the estimated SD :)
 
Thanks edziu, Aaron, this has been an interesting discussion. Reluctantly, I think I'll be buying a multivitamin for the first time in a couple of years. Although I consider myself as eating a very healthy diet, I don't believe I get as much variety as I should.

Scott, good point. I plan to test whatever new multi I get with edziu's warm water test; hopefully I'll find one that will dissolve fairly quickly. I'm not sure exactly what to look for in a multi, but I've skimmed back over my Protein Power book and will try to take a few suggestions from there. Are there any other guidelines as to amounts of vitamins/minerals that are a must?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 04 2003,12:21)](The only REAL multivitamin toxicity concern is iron, which is rarely mentioned. A high-iron multi or other iron supplement can be dangerous, especially to children, who are liable to consume a whole bottle of vitamins, thinking they are candy. Iron poisoning is not as rare as it ought to be.
Speaking of iron, there are slight difference in vitamin formulations for men and women, irrespective of preganancy and lactation. I'm not talking about the herbal extracts thrown in by many manufucaturers (some may have an effect, most probably don't), but rather things like iron. In our society, men do not need supplemental iron. In fact, iron acts as an oxidant, and may contribute to coronary artery disease. We have no ready way of losing iron (barring a blood-loss injury or dietary disfunction causing blood loss in the intestines), yet most men get lots and lots in the diet, especially with the huge amounts of meat consumed.
Women are not in the same boat -- pre-menopausal women lose iron every month. So some multi formuals offer an iron-free version for men and post-menopausal women, and an iron-loaded version for younger women, or men with a need.
Click to expand...
More is coming out in regards to Iron and NO in relation to CVD. Very compelling stuff. :)
 
I think the best multi-vitamin/antioxidant on the market is called Synergy by NSI. They have a men's multiple for $40 a month at Vitacost.com which has about everything your body could need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top