Supplement for eye sight?

[Kipper]

A multivitamin isn't going to take you over the threshold into toxicity unless you are taking handfuls of the things or your diet is seriously out of whack in the first place. And you can't draw a conclusion that more vitamins = more cancer because cancer cells feed off the same nutrients the rest of your body does.

Have you seen the dosage levels for some multivitamins? 200%, 300%, 1,000% of the RDA. Your average vitamin C pill has far, far, more than you actually need. Pretty easy to have toxicity symptoms With all all due respect, I don't think you have a good understanding the biochemistry behind cancer development and its interaction with VITAMINS. Folate is necessary for DNA synthesis, replication, silencing, etc. While this means it can help reduce the incidence of cancer, if cancer exists a rapidly reproducing tissue would require large amounts of folate, so a huge infusion of synthetic folate (highly absorbable and metabolically active compared to natural folate) would help to promote cancer development.

I just don't see the benefit to multivitamins (with aforementioned exceptions) that cannot be derived from food. It seems that in contrast, there are significant drawbacks. But of course, the public assumes that because vitamins are good, more must be better - so they sign up with quacks touting the health benefits of intravenous vitamin infusions.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

A multivitamin isn't going to take you over the threshold into toxicity unless you are taking handfuls of the things or your diet is seriously out of whack in the first place. And you can't draw a conclusion that more vitamins = more cancer because cancer cells feed off the same nutrients the rest of your body does.

"Blah blah blah, I can't hear you!"

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

"Blah blah blah, I can't hear you!"

That's real mature. I hear you both just fine. I just happen to disagree, along with many other folks just as knowledgeable if not more so.

Every example Kipper has used against multivitamins has been either flawed (few acute deficiency disorders so 1. there must be few cases of insufficiency and 2. processed food is fortified enough to prevent deficiency) or extreme (super high doses of vitamins, vitamins fueling cancer). You can be deficient without suffering the acute symptoms of deficiency, and this deficiency will culminate into a chronic disease over time, of which Kipper simply attributes to a bad diet outside of any nutrient deficiencies. This is where triage theory and the video I linked to come in (the first 15 minutes of which is not limited to vitamin D). And of course people can over do supplementation, but you don't recommend against something beneficial because too much is bad. And vitamins can fuel cancer just like poison can cure it, but that doesn't mean you recommend avoiding vitamins in general any more than you recommend taking poison in general.

 

[Maverick2002]

As others have noted, several vitamins and a slew of minerals are toxic in certain quantities. Vitamin A is one of those that can easily be overdosed on. Most multivitamins will give you enough A and I wouldn't supplement further. Also make sure that most of it is coming from beta-carotene, not retinol. Supposedly herbal supplements like billberry extract help with eyesight, but it could all be bs. Eyesight is mostly genetic and does stabilize as you get older.

Also keep in mind that RDA recommendations are still from 1968 (at the request of food companies) and there is plenty of new research which indicates recommended quantities quite different from those listed on the nutrition label.

Example: too much B6 can cause permanent neural damage, so watch how many of those 5 hour energies you chug.

 

[Kipper]

That's real mature. I hear you both just fine. I just happen to disagree, along with many other folks just as knowledgeable if not more so.

Every example Kipper has used against multivitamins has been either flawed (few acute deficiency disorders so 1. there must be few cases of insufficiency and 2. processed food is fortified enough to prevent deficiency) or extreme (super high doses of vitamins, vitamins fueling cancer). You can be deficient without suffering the acute symptoms of deficiency, and this deficiency will culminate into a chronic disease over time, of which Kipper simply attributes to a bad diet outside of any nutrient deficiencies. This is where triage theory and the video I linked to come in (the first 15 minutes of which is not limited to vitamin D). And of course people can over do supplementation, but you don't recommend against something beneficial because too much is bad. And vitamins can fuel cancer just like poison can cure it, but that doesn't mean you recommend avoiding vitamins in general any more than you recommend taking poison in general.

Okay, let's take these one by one.

1/2) The RDA/DRI are based on the estimated dosages necessary to prevent signs of deficiency, such as rickets. The incidence of these diseases is VERY rare. Therefore, deficiency is not an issue, with few exceptions. What about this reasoning is so problematic? You are arguing that sub-clinical deficiencies (assuming they exist) are problematic because they *may* cause chronic diseases. This is a very tall order to fulfill. First, you are assuming that widespread subclinical deficiency exists, for which there is little or no evidence for. I have mentioned time and time again that as lopsided as a diet may be, meeting 100% of the RDA generally occurs because processed food products are heavily fortified. Second, you are assuming that chronic subclinical vitamin deficiencies over decades and years are linked to diseases occurring secondary to aging, such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and dementia. Somehow, unproven subclinical micronutrient deficiencies are causing these diseases - and somehow, providing a multivitamin washes all of those ills away. Is this what you're arguing?

You make this claim despite reams of scientific evidence that show very little support for multivitamin use, and support for the exact opposite. Poor diet and lack of physical activity ARE clearly associated with the so-called diseases of aging. Multivitamin use is not. I am saying: fix the diet, reduce the risk for diseases of aging. You are essentially arguing: give them a multi, reduce the risk for diseases of aging. In essence, we are saying the same thing - except your approach leaves out the dozens upon hundreds of beneficial compounds in food, and fails to account for the OTHER effects of poor diet in the 20th century contributing to diseases of aging: obesity, insulin resistance, and the ills that follow them. Multivitamins do not prevent obesity.

3) I have stated the MANY published downsides to toxicity and oversupplementation, which is in fact quite easy to do if you consume a varied diet and/or fortified foods AND on top of that, supplements. I did not write that vitamins cause cancer, I only said there is evidence supplementation can exacerbate existing cancers - and that supplementation is associated with a higher incidence of some cancers. This doesn't leave a smoking gun in the hands of vitamins, but it is certainly something to make you think. In contrast, there is little evidence conclusively supporting supplementation.

I would rather spend my time recommending things I know help, rather than recommending people pop pills to address potential shortfalls in their diet that may not exist, or for which the benefit is completely unproven.

 

[ThorofThunder]

Well, technically, using supplements is not counterproductive. Your body doesn't synthesize most of the vitamins in your body, therefore they are required for function.

I believe you're referring to essential amino acids--those that our bodies cannot synthesize on their own. And you're right that we do not synthesize them all. In fact, there are 8 of 22 "standard" amino acids that we do not synthesize--the above-noted essentials. All 8 of these, however, can be obtained through a healthy diet.

That aside, vitamins, on the whole, are okay. Nothing more, nothing less. There are glaring exceptions on either end of the spectrum with regard to whether or not one should be consuming them. However, as long as you can continue a healthy and balanced diet, then vitamins boil down to, essentially, wasted cash.

It's also worth noting that hypervitaminosis is real; you can poison yourself by taking too many.

My original advice was based off the apparently disliked rule of thumbthat taking pills to whatever end leads to reliance, and reliance leads to other problems down the road.

Vitamins are no exception, period.


OP: You mentioned that you drink Coke Zero once a day or so. Stop. I may sound like your mother, but Coke Zero is worse for you than regular Coke. Sure, you might not see the calorie count on there, but Coke Zero uses "aspartame" instead of "high fructose corn syrup" (I'm dumbing down the science here a bit). High fructose corn syrup--which is in everything in America--is absolutely atrocious for the human body. Aspartame is even worse.

Aspartame is the reason why those "diet" sodas are so unhealthy.

Also, any brand of Coke is horrendous for your body in general. It's incredibly acidic--I use Coke to clean my toilet bowl.

If you want something sweet, then stick with natural sweeteners that are healthier for you like honey or cinnamon.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I believe you're referring to essential amino acids--those that our bodies cannot synthesize on their own. And you're right that we do not synthesize them all. In fact, there are 8 of 22 "standard" amino acids that we do not synthesize--the above-noted essentials. All 8 of these, however, can be obtained through a healthy diet.

That aside, vitamins, on the whole, are okay. Nothing more, nothing less. There are glaring exceptions on either end of the spectrum with regard to whether or not one should be consuming them. However, as long as you can continue a healthy and balanced diet, then vitamins boil down to, essentially, wasted cash.

It's also worth noting that hypervitaminosis is real; you can poison yourself by taking too many.

My original advice was based off the apparently disliked rule of thumbthat taking pills to whatever end leads to reliance, and reliance leads to other problems down the road.

Vitamins are no exception, period.


OP: You mentioned that you drink Coke Zero once a day or so. Stop. I may sound like your mother, but Coke Zero is worse for you than regular Coke. Sure, you might not see the calorie count on there, but Coke Zero uses "aspartame" instead of "high fructose corn syrup" (I'm dumbing down the science here a bit). High fructose corn syrup--which is in everything in America--is absolutely atrocious for the human body. Aspartame is even worse.

Aspartame is the reason why those "diet" sodas are so unhealthy.

Also, any brand of Coke is horrendous for your body in general. It's incredibly acidic--I use Coke to clean my toilet bowl.

If you want something sweet, then stick with natural sweeteners that are healthier for you like honey or cinnamon.

No, I was not confusing amino acids and vitamins. Yes, the body synthesizes many amino acids. Yes, there are essential amino acids that humans have to eat to survive. I was talking about things like vitamin D, which is activated/synthesized in the body. I'm not endorsing vitamins for healthy individuals. However, I was noting that for individuals with deficiencies/pathologies (frequently this population is the elderly) can benefit from vitamin supplementation.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Okay, let's take these one by one.

1/2) The RDA/DRI are based on the estimated dosages necessary to prevent signs of deficiency, such as rickets. The incidence of these diseases is VERY rare. Therefore, deficiency is not an issue, with few exceptions.

You can't assume that, for example, just because you don't have scurvy, you are getting adequate amounts of vitamin C. There are degrees of deficiency, and you can just be getting enough vitamin C not to have scurvy. RDA is pretty much a bare minimum just to not die.

What about this reasoning is so problematic? You are arguing that sub-clinical deficiencies (assuming they exist) are problematic because they *may* cause chronic diseases. This is a very tall order to fulfill.

Not that tall, and I'm certainly not the only one proposing it.

First, you are assuming that widespread subclinical deficiency exists, for which there is little or no evidence for. I have mentioned time and time again that as lopsided as a diet may be, meeting 100% of the RDA generally occurs because processed food products are heavily fortified. Second, you are assuming that chronic subclinical vitamin deficiencies over decades and years are linked to diseases occurring secondary to aging, such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and dementia.

Diseases are on the rise that we are finding more and more are nutrition related. And not just related in the sense of the excess bad stuff in our diets, but inadequate levels of good stuff as well. The evidence is out there and it's increasing.

Somehow, unproven subclinical micronutrient deficiencies are causing these diseases - and somehow, providing a multivitamin washes all of those ills away. Is this what you're arguing?

I'm not arguing multivitamins are a cure-all. Nor am I arguing that they are a replacement for a proper diet. They are a supplement.

You make this claim despite reams of scientific evidence that show very little support for multivitamin use, and support for the exact opposite. Poor diet and lack of physical activity ARE clearly associated with the so-called diseases of aging. Multivitamin use is not. I am saying: fix the diet, reduce the risk for diseases of aging. You are essentially arguing: give them a multi, reduce the risk for diseases of aging. In essence, we are saying the same thing - except your approach leaves out the dozens upon hundreds of beneficial compounds in food, and fails to account for the OTHER effects of poor diet in the 20th century contributing to diseases of aging: obesity, insulin resistance, and the ills that follow them. Multivitamins do not prevent obesity.

You're just the same old broken record. You obviously have the internet, use it. The evidence is out there, evidence specifically that shows poor nutrition is directly contributing to chronic disease of older people. I already posted two items to get you started. It's not just lack of exercise and too much sugar, salt, whatever in their diet. I make no claims that a vitamin is going to cure obesity and don't know anyone who knows a lick about anything that would argue a multivitamin would.

3) I have stated the MANY published downsides to toxicity and oversupplementation, which is in fact quite easy to do if you consume a varied diet and/or fortified foods AND on top of that, supplements.

The chances of one multivitamin with amounts around the RDA of pushing you into toxicity are between slim and none, and much closer to the none side.

I did not write that vitamins cause cancer, I only said there is evidence supplementation can exacerbate existing cancers - and that supplementation is associated with a higher incidence of some cancers. This doesn't leave a smoking gun in the hands of vitamins, but it is certainly something to make you think. In contrast, there is little evidence conclusively supporting supplementation.

You might as well be arguing that putting gas in your car contributes to engine wear.

I would rather spend my time recommending things I know help, rather than recommending people pop pills to address potential shortfalls in their diet that may not exist, or for which the benefit is completely unproven.

The best option is of course to get one's diet in proper order. Failing that, a multivitamin is going to be better than nothing at all just given the nature of nutrition.

 

[Atty]

OP: You mentioned that you drink Coke Zero once a day or so. Stop. I may sound like your mother, but Coke Zero is worse for you than regular Coke. Sure, you might not see the calorie count on there, but Coke Zero uses "aspartame" instead of "high fructose corn syrup" (I'm dumbing down the science here a bit). High fructose corn syrup--which is in everything in America--is absolutely atrocious for the human body. Aspartame is even worse.

Aspartame is the reason why those "diet" sodas are so unhealthy.

Also, any brand of Coke is horrendous for your body in general. It's incredibly acidic--I use Coke to clean my toilet bowl.

If you want something sweet, then stick with natural sweeteners that are healthier for you like honey or cinnamon.

...really?

But...but... caffeine.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

...really?

But...but... caffeine.

If you really want caffeine, you can buy caffeine mints or drink coffee. More negative aspects of soda are benzene and sodium benzoate, which are both cancer-causing agents. They are present in soda, whether it's diet or not.

 

[Atty]

Great... *sigh*

Well, I guess I'm going to have to switch to something else. How about tea? Is tea good?

 

[Howard]

Great... *sigh*

Well, I guess I'm going to have to switch to something else. How about tea? Is tea good?

Seriously?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Great... *sigh*

Well, I guess I'm going to have to switch to something else. How about tea? Is tea good?

Yeah, tea's pretty damn healthy (full of antioxidants). Black tea has more caffeine than green tea, just for your knowledge. I know some people depend on caffeine so if you really need it, drinking black tea is your best bet.

 

[ThorofThunder]

Yeah, tea's pretty damn healthy (full of antioxidants). Black tea has more caffeine than green tea, just for your knowledge. I know some people depend on caffeine so if you really need it, drinking black tea is your best bet.

True. One downside, though. Black tea tends to give you kidney stones.

I know of 3 relatives of mine who had kidney stones. The doctors asked them if they'd been drinking above-average amounts of black tea--they all had. All three of the doctors recommended that they switch to green tea.

Tread carefully!

 

[SociallyChallenged]

True. One downside, though. Black tea tends to give you kidney stones.

I know of 3 relatives of mine who had kidney stones. The doctors asked them if they'd been drinking above-average amounts of black tea--they all had. All three of the doctors recommended that they switch to green tea.

Tread carefully!

That seems like a poor conclusion to draw from your experience. Your relatives likely had a genetic predisposition to generating kidney stones. Especially if the stones were calcium based, your conclusion has no merit. Black tea has never been shown to increase risk of kidney stones. OP: Drink your tea. You'll be fine.