Supplements, supplements, supplements...

[spesmilitis]

For this you have to look at studies done for each particular problem. Most everything falls in the range of up to 2g, and some a little more.

For instance on B12, it HAS to be injected to give people energy. This is because of absorption.

The point in the post is the megadose of of an item, and that if you are going to do that, you have to have a reason. Just...making me feel better is not a valid reason for megadosing. If you have a disease and are doing it under medical supervision then ok.

Again, I'm not talking about just 'make me feel better' and other placebo type results. I am talking about solid health and performance results.

 

[Omen]

Again, I'm not talking about just 'make me feel better' and other placebo type results. I am talking about solid health and performance results.

First you would have to define what you mean by solid health. I have no medical problems, I exercise, eat right, have a low risk for cardiovascular disease, I take my multi, and a few other health supps.

Now sure, my vitamins are over the RDA of 100% but they aren't god awful high. In fact I only take one a day of my 2 a day multi, and I can tell you I still piss stuff out and dont use it. Probably the highest of anything I get is my B vitamins. B12 which is 2,000% in one tablet. Besides that, nothing goes over 800%.

Also too, vitamins do not give you performance, so you cant say that by taking more you have better performance. Not going to happen.

There's even a study that analyzed 90 days on a mult, and it had no effect on maximal aerobic power, endurance running performance, or strength. And that should have been a given before the study was done.

So again, assume you dont like the RDA of 100% take 200% of something then for solid health benefits. Most of us take way more, but you see the point? Assume we need more than 100% so you double it to 200%. That's double what is suggested. Do you think its necessary to really get 4,000 or 16,000% of something? What for? There are a handful of performance and I mean elite athletes out there who take no more than one multi and kick ass in everything they do.

Now i'm even going against the grain here by saying that one multi vitamin should be fine, when current text books say that taking a multi is NOT neceesary even for athletes, but again, I dont think they need to be extremely high. This is why megadoses of anything are not necessary unless its some solid medical condition and you've been tested and are being monitored. Especially if it was a fat soluble vitamin.

This is why I only take 1 per day. And even at the 1 I take, I excrete many of the vitamins. I can tell by the color of the urine and the smell. Not possible to tell though with the fat soluble ones just by guessing.

Remember, most of us eat pretty well, and much better than the average person, and we get lots of stuff in what we eat as well.
In fact the people who need a multi are people who eat like crap or not much at all. You know, the person who eats the pop tart and come 5pm goes... man i'm hungry and should probably eat. :kick:

 

[spesmilitis]

First you would have to define what you mean by solid health. I have no medical problems, I exercise, eat right, have a low risk for cardiovascular disease, I take my multi, and a few other health supps.

Well, there is the chronic hand dryness and focus I gained through fish oil, I made a thread about it. How but significant and constant increases in stamina, strength, and recovery? Deeper and more refreshing sleep? These benefits taking place while everything else is held constant, but there is a significant increase to your diet in a particular nutrient/supplement.

There have been studies done where athletes were deficient in certain minerals unless they supplement.

A supplement dosage for one athlete may not be right for another. A beginner whose diet and routine is way off will probably react much differently to a supplement than an experienced athlete whose diet and routine are spot on.

 

[Omen]

Well, there is the chronic hand dryness and focus I gained through fish oil, I made a thread about it. How but significant and constant increases in stamina, strength, and recovery? Deeper and more refreshing sleep? These benefits taking place while everything else is held constant, but there is a significant increase to your diet in a particular nutrient/supplement.

There have been studies done where athletes were deficient in certain minerals unless they supplement.

A supplement dosage for one athlete may not be right for another. A beginner whose diet and routine is way off will probably react much differently to a supplement than an experienced athlete whose diet and routine are spot on.

There are some athletes that dont eat crap really, and that's why they are on a multi or get deficient. Odd and sad really that an athlete wouldn't eat, but sometimes you see that in female runners, or other people who are lean to the bone. The barely eat, just to keep them going.

And if they do, they eat carbs from pasta, eat some protein or a shake and then call it good. You cant get all your nutrients from a protein shake and carbs. Maybe if you bought a shake with 100% vitamins you'd get your 100%, but that's all.

I eat as many things as I can, and a variety. Right now i'm eating 8oz of salmon, 1C cooked brown rice, 1/4C Soy beans, and a glass of OJ with my green tea in it, and blueberries. Then a piece of cheese on the salmon :u:

But you see, what I am eating in one meal, most people dont eat that decent all day long.

I was at work yesterday taking a quick break and I was eating a muscle muffin I made, and then 1/4C of Cottage cheese mixed in with 1/4C steel cut oats, and some cinnamon and honey.

The girl next to me was cramming down fries and a burger. And the sad thing is that she is already fat.

I had more nutrients in my muffin than she had in her whole meal. I had carbs, all aminos, most every mineral, fiber, and even some craisins were in there.

Some people say that what I eat is disgusting, and i'm sure some of you get it too. My response should be... Yeah, but I look a hell of a lot better than you dont I?

 

[mrRuckus]

Healthy food actually tastes good but the fact that its rarely eaten it they think it tastes funny so they don't like it.

I was eating a really sweet apple the other day wondering why kids like candy but don't like fruit. I'm just sort of wondering if that apple just tastes really sweet to me because i don't eat really sweet food in general anymore (used to gorge on candy) so it's a large contrast. I've really been liking grapes lately too.

 

[spesmilitis]

There are some athletes that dont eat crap really, and that's why they are on a multi or get deficient. Odd and sad really that an athlete wouldn't eat, but sometimes you see that in female runners, or other people who are lean to the bone. The barely eat, just to keep them going.

And if they do, they eat carbs from pasta, eat some protein or a shake and then call it good. You cant get all your nutrients from a protein shake and carbs. Maybe if you bought a shake with 100% vitamins you'd get your 100%, but that's all.

I eat as many things as I can, and a variety. Right now i'm eating 8oz of salmon, 1C cooked brown rice, 1/4C Soy beans, and a glass of OJ with my green tea in it, and blueberries. Then a piece of cheese on the salmon :u:

But you see, what I am eating in one meal, most people dont eat that decent all day long.

I was at work yesterday taking a quick break and I was eating a muscle muffin I made, and then 1/4C of Cottage cheese mixed in with 1/4C steel cut oats, and some cinnamon and honey.

The girl next to me was cramming down fries and a burger. And the sad thing is that she is already fat.

I had more nutrients in my muffin than she had in her whole meal. I had carbs, all aminos, most every mineral, fiber, and even some craisins were in there.

Some people say that what I eat is disgusting, and i'm sure some of you get it too. My response should be... Yeah, but I look a hell of a lot better than you dont I?

Again, you didn't answer my original question even though I reiterated it after each of your responses. Try to make sure you address it this time, k?

If a certain supplement dosage is giving solid health/performance benefits, would it still be likely that the particular dosage is at a toxic level?

"There are some athletes that dont eat crap really, and that's why they are on a multi or get deficient."

So you've seen the studies and the athletes diets for those studies, and determined that they eat like crap? I admit, I have not analyzed the studies in that detail. But, have you? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Healthy food actually tastes good but the fact that its rarely eaten it they think it tastes funny so they don't like it.

I was eating a really sweet apple the other day wondering why kids like candy but don't like fruit. I'm just sort of wondering if that apple just tastes really sweet to me because i don't eat really sweet food in general anymore (used to gorge on candy) so it's a large contrast. I've really been liking grapes lately too.

Well, there is not significant advertisements towards fruit, so people are not influenced to get too excited about that.

I stopped eating excess sugars during my teens. In my late teens I noticed that if I eat a decent amount of sugar (few slices of cake, a candy bar), I get headaches. I am not particularly found of the tastes of most sweets anymore. Off the top of my head, the only sweet that I can think of liking is pumpkin pie.

 

[Omen]

Again, you didn't answer my original question even though I reiterated it after each of your responses. Try to make sure you address it this time, k?

If a certain supplement dosage is giving solid health/performance benefits, would it still be likely that the particular dosage is at a toxic level?

"There are some athletes that dont eat crap really, and that's why they are on a multi or get deficient."

So you've seen the studies and the athletes diets for those studies, and determined that they eat like crap? I admit, I have not analyzed the studies in that detail. But, have you? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Firs off like I explained before and said, there are NO PERFORMANCE benefits from vitamins. As far as being toxic, toxic is toxic, cut and dry for a HEALTHY person. COULD it have a particular effect on one aspect of health (disease) wise, yes, it could, but again, the studies on megadoses of vitamins are sparse. The only way it does NOT become toxic is if the body is utilizing it for some reason. Say for instance it is cancer, and is attacking cancer cells as an example. That means the study showed lets say the cancer cells were absorbing 90% of Vit C or something. The body is then utilizing it.

You need to make sure you state whether it is a performance based supplement you are talking about as well, or a Vti/Min which are totally different things. So its better to say... Supplement of Vit C. Instead of just a supplement as most people term supplements with anything else besides Vit/Min

Example: Effect of vitamin C on prostate cancer cells in vitro: Effect on cell number, viability, and DNA synthesis

Remember too, INTRAVENOUSLY, not oral supplementation. Same goes with B12 injections.

Consuming vitamins in large amounts has not been shown to be of benefit for athletic performance. The only positive effects of vitamin supplements that have been shown for athletes is for those who are DEFICIENT in a particular vitamin. There is widespread belief among athletes that special nutritional practices will enhance their achievements in competition. Supplementation with vitamins, especially vitamin C, is equally popular. But because genetic predisposition, hard physical training and psychological factors play a most important role in determining performance, and because any potential difference in achievement will be small, it is almost impossible to obtain scientific evidence of a beneficial effect of a particular nutrient. There have been many investigations during the past four decades of the potential effect of high-dose vitamin C supplementation on physical performance. The variables used have included maximum oxygen uptake, blood lactic acid levels, and heart rate after exercise, and in some cases performance was assessed in competitive events. Almost all studies could not demonstrate an effect. On the other hand, a suboptimal vitamin C status results in an impaired working capacity which can be normalized by restoring vitamin C body pools. Athletes, who follow irrational, unhealthy eating patterns often not including vitamin-C-containing fruit and vegetables, are in need of nutrition education. Those who eat a well balanced diet and at most take a multi-vitamin supplement will not benefit from additional vitamin supplements.

Yes, the study I have seen, and read. I am not talking out of my ass. I'm not a high school kid who heard something at the gym or from my buddy. You should know this.

ACSM. 2000. Nutrition & Athletic Performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32:2130-45

Athletes at the greatest risk of poor micronutrient
status are those who restrict energy intake or use
severe weight-loss practices, eliminate one or more of the
food groups from their diet, or consume high-carbohydrate,
low-micronutrient– dense diets. Athletes participating in
these types of behaviors may need to use a multivitamin and
mineral supplement to improve overall micronutrient status.
Supplementation with single micronutrients is discouraged
unless clear medical, nutritional, or public health reasons are
present, such as the supplementation of iron to treat iron
deficiency anemia or folic acid to prevent birth defects.

Iron depletion (low iron stores) is one of the most prevalent nutrient deficiencies observed in athletes, especially female athletes.

Again, the info above mostly was geared towards C, but apply that with any vitamin.

 

[spesmilitis]

^^^^^^^
Omen, whats wrong with your reading comprehension? I don't understand why you are not able to comprehend my question after several clarifications, but I'll try again.

I am not talking about any studies. I am taking about your one's own individual results. Forget about all the studies for a moment. My question is:

If a dosage an individual takes results in significant health and/or performance benefits, is that dosage likely to be at a toxic level?

I can not clarify this enough, I am not talking about any studies. I am talking about an individual. All other factors are kept constant, only that supplement/nutrient dosage has changed. Remember, I am not talking about any studies. Just one person, one change in supplements/nutrient dosage, and increased health/performance.

Before you try to answer this question this time, make sure you go through this check list:

I understand that in the scenario spesmilitis brought up, it is given that:
-An athlete has noticed significant health/performance increases when the amount of a certain nutrient/supplement has increased.
-That amount is higher than what is recommended by studies.
-All other factors were kept constant
-Spesmilitis is not talking about any study, he is just bringing up a particular scenario
-The main question is: is that dosage at a 'toxic' level.
Make sure you understand all these points before attempting to answering the question.

As for the mineral deficiencies; if mineral deficiencies aren't a big problem, then I doubt they would have special testing centers for those deficiencies.
"more than 70% of the 250 NFL players we tested were deficient in both zinc and magnesium."
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do;jsessionid=D51C72E3A20DCCE2FBE884EA24CA79EA.hydra?id=460596
I remember a NFL nutritionist posted on this board a few months ago. From what he has told us, it seems that NFL players take their nutrition quite seriously.

 

[Throttle]

If a dosage an individual takes results in significant health and/or performance benefits, is that dosage likely to be at a toxic level?

I don't think anyone believes that fish oil is toxic at any particular level, in the same way most other compounds we might ingest could be toxic.

The question is whether the benefits of taking fish oil beyond a particular dose outweigh the costs. The truth is this discussion has gone on quite long enough b/c both of you are short on evidence either way.

Let's not lose sight of what we're talking about here: a particular variety of a macronutrient, not a micronutrient. Ya gotta eat fat (and WBA & I & others are encouraging everyone to eat more fat, not less) so some of us are suggesting that you try to bring your omega 3 to omega 6 ratio back to something more like 2:1 or 1:1 than 20:1.

Thus it's nonsensical to recommend a particular amount of fish oil independent of your omega-6 & overall calorie intake.

 

[spesmilitis]

Well, Omen's argument is that there is no benefit to taking supplements beyond what is recommended in current scientific studies, and that there are negative consequences to doing so.

My argument is that it is good to experiment with higher dosages, esp ones recommended by those who are accomplished in the field of strength training and nutrition. If those dosages result in benefits, there still might be a chance that those dosage levels also have consequences. But I would predict that those consequences are unlikely or minor, considering that the body is finding a way to utilize that dosage.

For the record, I have never dabbled in a higher than 'normally recommended' (1g/lb protein, 3gram fish oil/day, ect.) dosage unless it has been recommended by someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to exercise/nutrition.

 

[Drum&Bass]

unless it has been recommended by someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to exercise/nutrition.

right..like random people who post on message boards.

 

[spesmilitis]

right..like random people who post on message boards.

Yup. Victor Conte and Charles Poliquin were just random people I met on message boards.

 

[Omen]

Your question was answered many times, and than more then enough ways. Re-read the posts. I dont see why you fail to see what is posted. You should take time to decipher, or at least understand what is written. Your answer is there.

Right now we are talking about Vit C and vitamins and minerals, this is not a discussion about fish oil. That was another topic.

"An athlete has noticed significant health/performance increases when the amount of a certain nutrient/supplement has increased."

Again, you did not read my post or that statement would not be worded the way it is.

And because his name is Charles Poliquin, doesn't mean he is always right either.

In fact, I corrected one of his statements on Antioxidants, and dark fruits, etc. HIS STATEMENT WAS WRONG. Plain and simple. But for some reason, he didn't catch that, or didn't know because his mere focus is really more on lifting than it is in the area of supplements.

So Charles or not, his info was incorrect, and I corrected it.

You also cant keep saying "health" and "performance" like I mentioned to you. List what it is you are talking about for which item. There are NO performnace benefits with vit like I mentioned for the 10th time. And your general term health pretty much means nothing. "significant health increase" As in????

Ok, forget studies, if your health SUCKED cause you had cancer, and lets say Vit C attacked prostate cancer cells, and you didnt have it any more, I would say that is a SIGNIFICANT HEALTH INCREASE.

There is nothing else to answer as it was all answered already, and many things in detail. For some reason you are looking for something else.

Healthy Person + Megadose of something= TOXIC (varies from acute or chronic, and the vitamin. You have no problems what so ever, so it builds up in the body. Hence, it is not being utilized.)

Non-Healthy Person with a condition of some sort+ Megadose (MAY help) again, there are so many problems, and vit, that each has to be looked at, and what its use is in that condition or disease.

Not only that, if we look at C, some Drs who prescribe it, during illness, use a slow drip intravenous route over 30-60 min. They do this to bathe the cells in C. (again, its done because there is a reason to do it)

It doesn't get any more clearer than this.

I'm healthy, I have NOTHING wrong with me. If I go and take in 4x the amount of iron I take in now, I am going to have problems. THAT IS TOXIC. Plain and simple. Kids usually die, and have from this type of poisoning.

Say a runner is deficient and takes an iron supplement to get what they need. Do you think that megadoses of iron will help even more?

Or say a person who gets what they need. Say they go... Oh, it appears it does this and this and this in the body, and I want greater energy, or O2 transfer to my lungs and muscles, so if that's the case, and I can increase O2 to the lungs even more than they are now, that means a better VO2. Megadose iron here I come, and toxicity here it comes as well.

So it looks like its not a disease, and they were expecting greater health benefits, or even assume performance, and what did they get? Iron poisoning

 

[spesmilitis]

^^^^^^
You just stated that there are no benefits to any megadoses, and you supported this opinion with studies. You stated that the scenario I brought up is impossible. If you refuse to answer the scenario, just say so. I am not interested in debating the validity of the so called 'megadoses', its been done many times on this board.

http://ced.ncsu.edu/ircms/images/seven_keys_comprehension_large.jpg

""significant health increase" As in????"
Look at post 43.

Charles might have been wrong about the antioxidents. But looking at current fish oil and protein recommendations, I would say his errors is not as significant as those of majority in the field of sport nutrition.

 

[Throttle]

In fact, I corrected one of his statements on Antioxidants, and dark fruits, etc. HIS STATEMENT WAS WRONG. Plain and simple. But for some reason, he didn't catch that, or didn't know because his mere focus is really more on lifting than it is in the area of supplements.

So Charles or not, his info was incorrect, and I corrected it.

fair enough...but as Spes says, most 'nutritionists' say much dumber things, like "brown is always better" (referring to carbs) and "more fiber is always better" (ditto). and most people will say that "the darker green the vegetable, the healthier it is for you." Now I'm sure you can find plenty of exceptions to that rule, but it remains that given a choice between iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, and spinach (to grab 3 common examples), the rule of thumb serves you well as a guide..... I'm pretty sure that's all c.p. ever intended to say.

 

[spesmilitis]

"more fiber is always better"

Are you saying this is wrong because of the supplemental fiber thats contained in processed foods (like cereals)?

 

[Omen]

^^^^^^
You just stated that there are no benefits to any megadoses, and you supported this opinion with studies. You stated that the scenario I brought up is impossible. If you refuse to answer the scenario, just say so. I am not interested in debating the validity of the so called 'megadoses', its been done many times on this board.

http://ced.ncsu.edu/ircms/images/seven_keys_comprehension_large.jpg

""significant health increase" As in????"
Look at post 43.

Charles might have been wrong about the antioxidents. But looking at current fish oil and protein recommendations, I would say his errors is not as significant as those of majority in the field of sport nutrition.

If there was a smiley on here with him bashing his head on something i'd use it. Obviously you dont understand what I am getting at, but that's ok because some things for people are too complex. I mean I have to remember here, what type of board I am posting this on. NOT a top site for this type of stuff, where this would not be going on, and it would have been understood.

What did I say to you about health problems? You seem to skip that part, as well as now you say that you aren't even debating megadoses anymore.

You then said I supported an opinion with studies of not megadosing. Again, you clearly read nothing, or only part of what you wanted to read. :yawn:

I'm done with this topic because you aren't getting it. And one reason I clearly put a disclaimer about not babysitting people is a reason like this. How much do I need to spoon feed a person before they get it? Obviously for some, way too much.

 

[Omen]

fair enough...but as Spes says, most 'nutritionists' say much dumber things, like "brown is always better" (referring to carbs) and "more fiber is always better" (ditto). and most people will say that "the darker green the vegetable, the healthier it is for you." Now I'm sure you can find plenty of exceptions to that rule, but it remains that given a choice between iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, and spinach (to grab 3 common examples), the rule of thumb serves you well as a guide..... I'm pretty sure that's all c.p. ever intended to say.

You also have to remember too about who claims what for certain supplements or dosages. Even look at the suggested amount for protein that people seem to talk about, at 2g. People dont understand why things like this truly float around, and even by people who are so called experts, or people in the supplement industry.

It boils down to $$$ and business in all honestly, and most people have sheets pulled over their head when it comes to the supplement industry and business end of things. Not every person or company is bad, but if people only knew. I'd like to think they do, but its obvious when you talk to people. There is a whole other side they dont see. Trust me, I know.

The 2g of protein talk is about as true as Patrick Arnold never being in jail. lol What? PA ran LPJ and Ergopharm and created 1AD and all his products were legit. Yes, and monkey's and pigs fly too. :crackup:
No doubt, the guys a genius, but he got caught. "Come on Omen, you cant be telling me that the 2g of protein has something to do with the supplement industry at all." No, i'm just talking out of my ass and guessing, and really wished I knew what went on.

 

[Throttle]

hey, i'm as skeptical of the supplement industry as anyone, i seem to recall hammering you once just for being anything like a part of it.

the guys here who quote 2g of protein do so cuz it worked for them, not because the supplement industry told them to. well, either it worked for them, or they're keyboard jockeys, and that's the risk you take with anonymous internet advice.

If there was a smiley on here with him bashing his head on something i'd use it. Obviously you dont understand what I am getting at, but that's ok because some things for people are too complex. I mean I have to remember here, what type of board I am posting this on.

this was relatively civil, though heated, but now with the ad hominem (against-the-person) attacks on spes... sheesh. i expect as much from d&b at this point so it's easy to ignore. i'm curious, what's the latin for against-the-forum attacks...?

 

[spesmilitis]

I mean I have to remember here, what type of board I am posting this on. NOT a top site for this type of stuff, where this would not be going on, and it would have been understood.

Post your philosophies on irronaddict.com, wannabebig.com, elitelifts.com, t-nation.com and let me know how it goes.

What did I say to you about health problems? You seem to skip that part, as well as now you say that you aren't even debating megadoses anymore.

You then said I supported an opinion with studies of not megadosing. Again, you clearly read nothing, or only part of what you wanted to read. :yawn:

I'm done with this topic because you aren't getting it. And one reason I clearly put a disclaimer about not babysitting people is a reason like this. How much do I need to spoon feed a person before they get it? Obviously for some, way too much.

The only topics you addressed are the ones you brought up yourself. I asked you to consider a scenario. You refused to consider it. You did not directly state you refused to consider it, so I assumed you had some clarity problems with the question I brought up.

From the info you brought up, I understand why you feel that this scenario is unlikely, but I think its a little shortsighted to deny it altogether.

Replies in bold