Interesting read. Looking forward to any discussion.
Interesting read. Looking forward to any discussion.
Pretty interesting article. The good thing about Soylent is that when we get enough real science, we will change the formula. The infancy of the nutrition has been talked about many times in this forum. The idea the nutrition is just chemistry is new to most people. I am happy enough to use the existing research to determine what should go into Soylent. I trust Rosa Labs enough to let them take that responsibility over for me. I’m 100% sure it is better than what I was eating before.
That was a really interesting article. I try and base my supplements on the best available scientific research. I take fish oil (http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/) and Vitamin D (http://examine.com/supplements/Vitamin+D/). I feel that both of those supplements have enough research behind them to warrant taking. However, I also take a multivitamin. Most studies I have seen dismiss multivitamins as being useful. I justify it in that it will prevent me from being deficient in any of the most common nutrients. Yes, nutritionists always say that you will get everything you need from a well-balanced diet. Except hardly anyone has a perfect “well-balanced” diet full of diverse fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains. I certainly don’t. What are your thoughts on multivitamins?
That’s why we have Soylent.
But yeah, pre-Soylent I found a multivitamin was useful because my diet was sometimes just a small handful of foods for an extended period of time. Even at 50% Soylent I see no need for a multivitamin anymore, because it’s impossible for me to be seriously deficient in anything.
I was wondering about this subject. My pre-soylent diet was terrible so I've always used supplements and decided since I still have some it won't hurt to use them up. A doctor prescribed CoQ10 so I'll still take that but as for the rest I may just forget it and see how things go. I'm still new including the Jan. stoppage but I'm feeling better as days go by. Anything is better then the processed merry go round I was living on.Looking forward to 1.4 etc.
Just curious what did he prescribe it for?
Indeed interesting article.
From my understanding, we should not overdose vitamins just based on a good effects of small doses.
Yes, If you have pretty-balanced diet, having some specific vitamins can increase risk of some deceases by 5-10%.
Well, any change of diet can increase/decrease chances of getting some decease by <10% in either way.
But again, if we would have balanced diet in the first place. And money is usually not the main corner on this road.
I think that Soylent is keeping their dosages in the recommended levels and nobody have proved that absence of Vitamin C is helpful. There are just ways of contradictory beliefs that increased doze of some vitamins are more beneficial or less beneficial.
If I remember correctly it was for heart health. He also suggested a multi-vitamin.
I don’t think that was an interesting article - it was mostly just a slam on a Linus Pauling.
Yes, he was a little misguided and went too far on the Vitamin C thing. But he was still undeniably a brilliant scientist, one of the few to win more than one Nobel prize. He was active in the field at a time long before a lot of modern medicine and testing, so it’s not a surprise that some of his speculation was off the mark. Watson & Crick may have described the shape of DNA in 1953, but it wasn’t until 2000 that the human genome was sequenced, and we’re still trying to make sense of it.
The article talks about how, in 1966, when he was 65, he got turned on to vitamin C in a letter that said, “that if I followed his recommendation of taking 3,000 milligrams of vitamin C, I would live not only 25 years longer, but probably more.”
The article closes by mentioning that “in 1994, Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer,” and the way the article drops it there, seeming to imply the Vitamin C was bad for him. It doesn’t point out that this means he lived more than 25 years longer since 1966 - he died of prostate cancer at the ripe old age of 93, which was 28 years.
He may have been wrong about the effect of high-dose vitamin C, but it doesn’t seem to have cut his life short, either.
I think the main concern raised is the potentially negative effect of supplementing, the Pauling story was a bit of a tangent from what’s relevant to our purposes imo.
This is long, but I think it is credible:
Vitamins and Supplements: An Evidence-Based Approach
- Vitamin supplements A, C, and E = bad for you
- Vitamin supplements B = won’t hurt but probably won’t help unless pregnant (prevents common birth defects)
- Vitamin supplements D = good for curing common deficiency, but not that helpful beyond that. Possibly helpful with calcium for bones in elderly.
- Fish Oil supplements = little to no benefit, not as beneficial as once looked.
Bad for you when on soylent because it already has those vitamins in enough quantities or bad for people on any food?
Was the “C” supposed to be a “K”? Because C is water soluble and the UL is ridiculously high. … And I have mood swings without my Vitamin C fix.
bad for you when you regularly take exclusive vitamin C supplements with many times the RDA
You’re right, vitamin C is water soluble. Vitamin C supplements are bad not because they build up in the body to a toxicity. The large random double-blind studies on giving people vitamin C or placebo showed that people on vitamin C had an increased death rate that was statistically significant. And one of the theories is that the free radicals (loose electrons) are necessary to kill off weak/old somatic cells and cancer cells. Taking a large anti-oxidant like vitamin C could disrupt that process. Theory. Regardless of the explanation, taking regular vitamin C supplements increases your risk of dying according to the data.
edit: Not talking about the RDA of vitamin C or the vitamin C in Soylent or the vitamin C in a multivitamin. I’m talking those exclusively vitamin C pills with many times the RDA.
Can you point me to this study so that I can look at it?
Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought it was saying they are always bad, period. But yeah, many of the pills ate ridiculously high.
Well I was going by the studies presented in the lecture I posted above from University of California San Francisco. Long term supplementation of an anti-oxidant vitamin (A, C, E) beyond RDA trends towards increased risk of death.
I can’t find links to the specific studies, but lots of other credible sources claim the same thing, including OP’s article.
From Mayo Clinic:
“High doses of vitamin C have been associated with multiple adverse effects. These include blood clotting, death (heart-related), kidney stones, pro-oxidant effects, problems with the digestive system, and red blood cell destruction.”
I dont’t have 1.5 hours to spend watching your video just to find the name of the study you’re referring to. You’re posting here saying that there is a “large random double-blind studies on giving people vitamin C or placebo showed that people on vitamin C had an increased death rate that was statistically significant,” I’m asking you to please identify the study so I can look at it. You don’t need to provide a link; I can find the study myself, given the name of it, the authors, the publication, the year, just a little bit of information would let me find what you’re talking about. It should be easy, given just a little bit of the facts.
I read OP’s article, but saw no such claim. It said that Vitamin C didn’t decrease mortality from cancer (which Pauling once claimed), but I recall nothing about increasing death rates. Can you point me to where in the article is says anything about such studies showing that Vitamin C increases mortality?
If there are “lots of credible sources,” it should be easy for you to find at least one that refers to the “large random double-blind studies on giving people vitamin C or placebo” which shows that Vitamin C causes increased mortality.
Well, yes, overdoses of many things cause adverse effects. Even water. What dosages were they talking about, here? Also… this says nothing at all about mortality. Does the Mayo Clinic say anything about Vitamin C supplementation leading to increased mortality?