1) Again with the insults. Do you have no other method of expression? Fucktard this, and dickhead that. Really.
2) My goal is to provide as much information as possible. What is your goal?
3) I could certainly be a bigger asshole. I could be like you, for example.
4) It's sad that what matters more to you is not what is being told you, but how it's told.
The amount of misinformation in this thread is just frustrating. Most men don't need iron supplementation because they don't bleed 5-7 days each month. In fact, even most women don't need iron supplementation; even most women with menorrhagia don't need iron supplementation. Only vegetarians/vegans, pregnant women, and people with huge amounts of bleeding loss during menstruation (around the order of 80-100mL per day) I would say require regular iron supplementation. Nobody else actually needs it - meat is a very rich source of iron, and the body is very efficient at retaining it. The difference between male and female required intakes of iron is almost purely due to menstrual loss - post-menopausal women require a similar amount of iron to similar-age men, which is also the same as the intake for 20-year old men. No, taking a multivitamin every other day won't actually make a difference. If you aren't deficient, you don't need it anyway, and if you are deficient, then taking a multivitamin won't help that much either.
What's even more frustrating, though, is that you guys all take this information completely uncritically and don't take the time to quality-control this information that currently has an open highway into your head. I expect that with whatever I say, someone will do background reading into it and correct me if I'm wrong - this helps me as much as everyone else. Whereas you guys are just sitting there pouring information into each other's heads with no clue and no care as to whether it's the elixir of life or radioactive sludge.
The amount of misinformation in this thread is just frustrating. Most men don't need iron supplementation because they don't bleed 5-7 days each month. In fact, even most women don't need iron supplementation; even most women with menorrhagia don't need iron supplementation. Only vegetarians/vegans, pregnant women, and people with huge amounts of bleeding loss during menstruation (around the order of 80-100mL per day) I would say require regular iron supplementation. Nobody else actually needs it - meat is a very rich source of iron, and the body is very efficient at retaining it. The difference between male and female required intakes of iron is almost purely due to menstrual loss - post-menopausal women require a similar amount of iron to similar-age men, which is also the same as the intake for 20-year old men. No, taking a multivitamin every other day won't actually make a difference. If you aren't deficient, you don't need it anyway, and if you are deficient, then taking a multivitamin won't help that much either.
What's even more frustrating, though, is that you guys all take this information completely uncritically and don't take the time to quality-control this information that currently has an open highway into your head. I expect that with whatever I say, someone will do background reading into it and correct me if I'm wrong - this helps me as much as everyone else. Whereas you guys are just sitting there pouring information into each other's heads with no clue and no care as to whether it's the elixir of life or radioactive sludge.
You just phrased what I was implying in more words. I could have been more literal and stated that men accumulate more iron than women due to this, and we already take in far enough iron just by diet alone.
More iron = more free radical acceleration.
What the hell did you think I meant?
Also thinking about supplementing more vitamin D on top of the 1600 IU... maybe another 1000IU/day? Thoughts?
I've taken six thousand IU a day for a couple years without dying. But I don't get to see the light of day much down in the hole I work in.
Eat fruit & vegetables, screw vitamin pills.
I'm researching multivitamins and found this thread, good info. I also found these multivitamin reviews that might be helpful for some:
http://supplementreviews.com/categories/vitamins/multi-vitamins
I think I'm going to try Opti-men.
I've been taking opti-men for a while now, but then I read this thread which suggests that it is one of the multivitamin brands that isn't that great.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136356991
I've been taking it for a while, but like with any multivitamin I take I don't know what it is really doing for me. Would choosing a "good" (which probably also relates to expensive) multi really make a difference?
Vitamin B12 (As Cyanocobalamin).Originally Posted by UltimateSwag View Post
so uhh....opti-men is ****e?
Magnesium (As Magnesium Oxide, Aspartate).
Pharmaceutical Glaze.
Yep. It's crap.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BroscienceHe had no science to back it up, but many people followed that lead.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Broscience
I'm partial to Mr. Pedantic's point. There is little compelling evidence to take a multi. Personally, I've tinkered with them on and off for a couple of decades, more time off than on due to this. Once in a blue moon I get inspired that maybe some vitamin deficiency is in me and if resolved I could be healthier, but there's little more to this than wishful thinking.
AFAIK vitamins have been studied extensively, with many studies, and there is currently no recommendation from any major governmental body recommending the average otherwise healthy joe, who's not been diagnosed with a deficiency, take them. Now, the rest of us can swear up and down about how awesome they are, but we must admit the risk that some of that swearing is placebo.
Another common supplement is fish oil and from what I gather there is a little more positive indication to take this.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Broscience
I'm partial to Mr. Pedantic's point. There is little compelling evidence to take a multi. Personally, I've tinkered with them on and off for a couple of decades, more time off than on due to this. Once in a blue moon I get inspired that maybe some vitamin deficiency is in me and if resolved I could be healthier, but there's little more to this than wishful thinking.
AFAIK vitamins have been studied extensively, with many studies, and there is currently no recommendation from any major governmental body recommending the average otherwise healthy joe, who's not been diagnosed with a deficiency, take them. Now, the rest of us can swear up and down about how awesome they are, but we must admit the risk that some of that swearing is placebo.
Another common supplement is fish oil and from what I gather there is a little more positive indication to take this.
All this talk about Orange Triad has me looking into it...
first off, 45 6-pill servings. They say twice a day. Is that 2x3pills, or two full 6-pill servings?
I assume it's the former, as the latter seems to introduce an insane amount of lipid-based vitamins that cannot be good for you in the long run.
Hell, I'm already slightly curious on a more "professional" opinion of 10,000 IU of Vitamin A. That, when combined with what you'll naturally get from your daily diet, seems to be an excessive amount.
And for those of you who are fans of Orange Triad, are you pretty hardcore with training regimens? I've slacked on my running lately but have been pushing myself with a strength-training regimen and will soon be combining my original run regimen/goals with my strength plans. I figure more supplements, the "right" ones, will help ensure I'm not in pain every second of every day, and hopefully allow me to amp up both of my training plans and improve all around.
If it's $50 for 45 days, that's not too bad imho, considering that's barely more than a buck a day for vitamins. My current ones are just shy of a buck a day, when averaged with random deals. But in general, with no deals, it's $1/day exactly.