Recommending a multi?

[imported_edziu]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Dec. 08 2003,7:09)]

Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 08 2003,7:49)]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.)

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

Where the SD is known, yes. But when they can't calculate an standard deviation because of inadequate data, they do EAR + 20%. Despite the fact that vitamin C is fairly well-studied, they are forced to do EAR + 20% for it. (See http://books.nap.edu/books/0309069351/html/147.html#pagetop.)

And I will accept your contention that "for the average person they are OK." But I still contend that it's good to strive for better, and in the realm of multivitamins, a little more is probably better, with little downside if you're wrong.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (edziu @ Dec. 09 2003,5:58)]Where the SD is known, yes. But when they can't calculate an standard deviation because of inadequate data, they do EAR + 20%. Despite the fact that vitamin C is fairly well-studied, they are forced to do EAR + 20% for it

The way its worded here is poor, as they are rounding everything. They obviously have dumbed it down here, as they have used these calculations (as below) for other micronutrients/trace elements, I know one of the reviewers from the ZINC RDA. (also local RNI researchers)
This will affect other vits as some have different CV rates that they estimate from.
its 1.96 (if everyone remembers their standard curve, 1.96xsd will cover 95% of hte population, so the RDA will include 97.5 becuase htere is 2.5% sitting below hte lower 95% confidence interval) x the SD (estimated from the EAR and 10%cv)
So if the EAR is say 75mg (men off the page you quote) the estimated SD will be
CV = SD/mean therefore SD = 75 * 0.1 = 7.5mg
so the RDA will be placed at 75 +- (1.96*7.5) or 89.7mg ~90mg which is the RDA
The womans is 60mg +- (1.96x6) = 71.76 which is rounded up to 75mg
I guess I am being a picky bastard in this example, as they are rounding up nicely.

Quote[/b] ]And I will accept your contention that "for the average person they are OK." But I still contend that it's good to strive for better, and in the realm of multivitamins, a little more is probably better, with little downside if you're wrong.

I still have yet to see anything that shows a supplement will be better than getting that nutrient from food.

 

[imported_edziu]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Dec. 09 2003,6:31)]The way its worded here is poor, as they are rounding everything. . .

[clip]

So if the EAR is say 75mg (men off the page you quote) the estimated SD will be
CV = SD/mean therefore SD = 75 * 0.1 = 7.5mg
so the RDA will be placed at 75 +- (1.96*7.5) or 89.7mg ~90mg which is the RDA
The womans is 60mg +- (1.96x6) = 71.76 which is rounded up to 75mg[/i]
I guess I am being a picky bastard in this example, as they are rounding up nicely.

Confidence factors aside, the CV itself is a guess of 10%. They stated elsewhere (not hunting for it now) that when they do not have the data to calculate an SD, they simply add 20%. That's reasonable; there's no point in doing 19.6% when the basic 10% is an estimate, and the result is rounded to the nearest 5 mg. Their math is fine, given the assumptions.

Quote[/b] ]I still have yet to see anything that shows a supplement will be better than getting that nutrient from food.

And I don't expect you will!

 

[Aaron_F]

They have used different CV on other nutrients, just cant remember where, it could be aussie/nz stuff actually.

10% is a pretty shitty CV anyway, so its likely to be over estimating it.

 

[imported_edziu]

Quote[/b] (KingProtein @ Dec. 08 2003,7:15)]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.

Bear in mind that warm water is not a perfect analog for gastric juices that are released after a meal -- but if it dissolves in 20 minutes in water, you can be pretty sure it will dissolve in your stomache.

Also, some formulas intentionally do not dissolve quickly, like TwinLab's DualTabs. In theory, the outside layer dissolves quickly, but the inner layer dissolves slowly for a "slow release" result. If the design is right, it can be a good thing. I think I'll be trying the DualTabs.

 

[Scott S]

w00t!

I went right back to my dorm room and performed the warm water test on one of my multivitamins. Within two minutes, the coating had softened, and within four, I could see little bits of binding break loose and float to the top. In not more than a half hour, the entire thing had disintegrated. So that's a good sign. Kinda grossed my girlfriend out when I explained how sewage workers routinely spot undigested multivitamins in waste.

 

[NZlifter]

I dont really believe in vitamin and mineral supplimentation. If you eat a variety of foods, eat lots of vegetables you should be fine. I guess if you are on a low calorie or low carb diet they may have some use. I came across an interesting article on vitamin c and other vitamins, have a read its quite interesting.

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_f....ns.html

 

[imported_edziu]

I don't really believe in an article that claims ascorbic acid can not prevent scurvy (it does), citing as scientific authority the findings about ascorbic acid from an 1840 issue of The Lancet. How scientific were their findings in 1840? In 1950, doctors were still saying cigarrettes were good for you, and there were ads for them in medical journals.

More importantly, two sentences later, he states that Vitamin C was discovered 97 years later in 1937.

Vitamin C is ascorbic acid, no mater what hokum this author may propound. And many studies have found equal efficacy in clinical results with natural and synthetic ascorbic acid. The only vitamin I know where any difference was found was vitamin E; natural is more effective than synthentic.

FWIW, I'm going to let this thread die now.