Comment by dsp_person | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsp_person | Hacker News Reader

I was looking into algea/spirulina for B12, but found some sources indicating it is not a bioavailable form of B12, and also prevents real B12 from being absorbed.

I'd be interested to know any counter research to this.

> almost all algae revealed vitamin B12 analogues instead of the real thing. Analogues are not only ineffective, but also potentially dangerous. Most researchers have consequently dismissed algae as a B12 source and recommend natural B12 supplements as a safe alternative

> In order to properly understand the discussion about the B12 content of algae, it is important to first take a closer look at analogues. Also known as pseudo B12, analogues are molecules which are so chemically similar to real B12 that they bond to the same transport molecule. In contrast, however, they have no vitamin effect on the body whatsoever. This is detrimental to health, as only real B12 that is bound to this specific transport molecule can be used by the body.

https://www.b12-vitamin.com/algae/

Isn't the recommended B12 dosage per day like 4 micrograms?

Less than 1.5 milligrams in a year.

Looking at the cost of Cyanocobalamin, it appears to be around $1000/kg.

https://www.pharmacompass.com/active-pharmaceutical-ingredie...

Complete B12 supplementation is going to set you back literally 0.1 cents per year. All B12 you'll ever take in your whole life is not even worth 10 measly cents.

Just some supplement for thought to consider before changing your diet for that.

But don't forget that some older individuals, such as myself, lose the ability to easily absorb B12. And a B12 deficiency is not a pleasant thing. Somewhat along the lines of the onset of Parkinson's or ALS. Consequently I take a single tablet every morning that provides over 200,000% of the recommended daily dose...

Well, if you go in on bulk B12 with some friends at $1k/kg, I guess you could limit it to 10¢. In reality, more accessible supplements run me closer to $5/month. I'm fine with that. Risking a deficiency isn't worth $5/month, and I don't have an efficient or viable alternative.

Why not just take B12 produced with microbes (= most supplements)? Those are considered vegan. Trying to get B12 from algae sounds unnecessarily complicated, considering our B12 has in all of our history been of microbial origin.

But I also wouldn’t shun algae just because they occupy some B12 transporters. There’s all kinds of metabolic tradeoffs with every kind of food, and we are designed to tolerate that. Most metabolic pathways are 4-5x redundant IIRC.

Oh I remember now I was actually looking at spirulina for omega 3.

Seemed hard to find numbers, but one source said 331mg of EPA per gram of Spirulina platensis (https://www.ripublication.com/ijac16/ijacv12n4_05.pdf).

Was considering what it would be like to eat like 6 grams of spirulina for 2g of EPA, versus that in one teaspoon of fish oil (high EPA type).

But got stuck on the B12 blocking stuff. I wonder if your point is true that there's enough redundancy it doesn't matter. It would be nice if it was easier/cheaper to get bloodwork to do some experiments with this kind of stuff.

Interesting about the omega 3. Maybe the oil is also less likely to get rancid if it’s still bound to the plant.

Re testing, the article you linked has another article linked on the same site: https://www.b12-vitamin.com/analogues/ They mention MMA testing here (you could get one as part of the Organic Acids Test at „The Great Plains“ lab for example), but that’s quite expensive ($299 right now). It’s maybe the most accurate B12 test out there. Technically, it’s a test by proxy.

If you are currently serum B12 deficient, then there’s probably not that much to worry about, because the B12 analogues in algae also won’t be absorbed properly (maybe due to a lack of intrinsic factor). Supplemental methyl- and adenosyl-B12 don’t have that problem.

These researchers seem to think Spirulina improves the health of b12 deprived mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31502254/ - the result looks pretty solid to me.

The same group tested Chlorella in another paper, same result.

Yep. People need meat.

B12 absorption is finicky, and meats contain rather small amounts. Injections and sublinguals are actually better at increasing levels than meat.

Organ meats such as beef liver provide a significant amount of B12. If you are just eating muscle meat, then you will have to eat a lot.

Excess liver consumption is a risk factor for vitamin A toxicity though, and the B12 amount varies wildly. Red meat consumption also increases cancer risk. It’s safer to take supplements from a reputable source.

Challenge accepted

For B12? You do know that animals don’t produce B12, but microorganisms (that can be found in soil and untreated water) and that farmed animals eat B12 supplemented food?

So no, people don’t need meat. Not for B12, or for proteins or for iron or for anything else.

Do people want to eat meat? That’s a different story.

If you want to turbo optimize your life and give up caffeine so your body can absorb non-heme iron be my guest. It’s far simpler to eat as omnivores as humans were meant to be, especially with so many factors on the scale against your favor.

For me it makes no difference whether I consume animal products or not. I’ve consumed no animal products in about five months now, and aside from needing to spend a bit longer looking at labels when I first started, now I know what I’m doing I spend no more or less time on food.

I take a big multivitamin in the evening and that’s it.

Are you saying you believe vegans are unable to drink coffee?

Humans weren't "meant" to eat any single way, for what it's worth. We have the good fortune of possessing exceptionally flexible diets, but we can survive readily on many variations of what's possible.

Something people frequently overlook (or are unaware of) is that in much of the world, animal agriculture utilizes B12 supplementation. This is part of why there is B12 in commercial animal products. Without that, B12 levels in commercial animal products would be lower. Further, people who eat animal products aren't guaranteed to avoid deficiencies.

The idea that we "need" meat is thoroughly debunked by decades of excellent, high-quality research. What we "need" as far as B12 goes is essentially less sanitary environments; we (and animals we ate) used to get enough from food and water which wasn't clean by current standards.

They also need Hi-C Flashin' Fruit Punch because rib eye is low in ascorbic acid.

You can get that from eating whale skin, much tastier and healthier

Oh man, I ate whale skin in Greenland. It was hairy and tasted like a decomposing car tire. You must have had the good kind.

> tasted like a decomposing car tire

Theres probably lots of cheese that you could say the same about that is well enjoyed. That said, I don't know if the whale skin I had could be called "good" to my taste. It was beluga I think, from the Canadian arctic. What was striking though was how sour it was and the strong taste of ascorbic acid. With a very chewy texture.

Guess what? Farm animals need B12 supplements.

So why not just take B12 supplements ourselves? Cut out the middleman and as a bonus lower stress on our biosphere and reduce our carbon footprint.

I'm existence proof to the contrary.

It's technically correct that we need some animal products. The big one I can think of is crude oil. It's from animals long dead and also used to make plastics. Not sure if we count insects as animal products but the work of bees helps pollinate our crops. We don't eat the bees but we do take advantage of them and breed them to go around and pollinate crops.

> crude oil. It's from animals

IIRC that's mostly from plants and algae, and definitely can be substituted with things made purely from plants and algae.

However, I was replying to someone who said specifically "meat", and crude oil isn't meat.

> Not sure if we count insects as animal products but the work of bees helps pollinate our crops. We don't eat the bees but we do take advantage of them and breed them to go around and pollinate crops.

If you're that expansive, humans are also animals, and we also rely on each other's labour.

Can't argue with those points. I went too far and ended up leaving the field. :-)

Very true, but you know idealism, denial and delusion is a thing. Many will literally die rather than come to terms with the 'fact' that every human (without exception) needs some animal products.

Why are you so certain?

To the best of my knowledge, the last time I consumed any meat (which is what you're agreeing with to begin, even though you later say the much more general "animal products" which includes milk), was on a 2015 trip to Kenya, where the cook somehow randomised the ingredients in everyone's sandwiches (I asked for a "cheese and pesto" sandwich, my cheese was switched with someone else's chicken), and the time before that was 2009, where my vegetarian lasagna was switched with someone else's beef lasagna.

Even with those accidents, twice in 13 years doesn't seem like a "you're delusional if you think you can go without" kind of a thing.

Also, full on vegans are a thing. I'm not one (cheese is too tempting), but it's not crazy like breatharians or whatever.

>Why are you so certain?

I feel obliged respond. I'll try and put a short useful response. ( It becomes a little tiring to give an elaborate, well thought out response when one repeatedly encounters what one sees as irrationality).

- I have _never_ see a vegan thrive (health wise) in the long run.

- Many 'honest' vegans admit occasionally binge eat animal products - in your case cheese.

- May 'vegans' lie outright

- There are lot of ex-vegans out there, some of them who were truly committed. Search for them on the web and you will find them.

- https://www.beyondveg.com/ has information from people who probably tried being vegans from the sixties. Grandpa may have some wisdom that you may not be aware of.

> Many 'honest' vegans admit occasionally binge eat animal products - in your case cheese.

Don't call me a vegan. I'm vegetarian. That means choosing no meat, no more, no less.

It does rather look like you are unfamiliar with the difference, both from this response and your previous comment replying specifically to meat.

> Grandpa may have some wisdom that you may not be aware of.

I'm older than I think you think I am. And both my grandfathers died before I was born.

>Don't call me a vegan. I'm vegetarian. That means choosing no meat, no more, no less.

Partially my fault in the way I phrased my sentence. I was referring to vegans in general. Not you in particular. ( buddy, where's the benefit of doubt, if you assumed I did not know the difference?)

>I'm older than I think you think I am. And both my grandfathers died before I was born.

If you occasionally eat animal products you will survive(or even do well), Again my point is lost, my point being that there is more than a little to to be learnt from people who have attempted veganism for decades.

The delivery of my message may not be perfect or even crude, but the bare minimum information is there, including the link I put, where you will end up spending days if you are not familiar with aspects of nutrition. Look past me - and I'm sure if you are skeptical enough of any conventional nutritional wisdom, you will learn a _lot_ .

And here are some counter points:

Oldest known vegan - Dr Wareham (heart surgeon) - 104 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_Wareham

Athletes thriving on a plant-based diet: https://gamechangersmovie.com/

100s of physicians recommending a plant based diet: https://www.pcrm.org/

Vegan doesn't mean automatically being healthy. Vegan is mainly about being cruelty free as much as possible, as killing and exploiting animals is cruel.

By adopting a plant based whole food diet you can be healthy and at the same time reduce your carbon footprint and damage to our biosphere.

Just don't eat Pringles and drink Coke all day (technically being vegan).

All of that data is suspect. About 2 decades back I used to believe that that at lest some people can thrive without any animal products.

If you thought that a large number of experts (docs in this case) collectively cannot get it wrong , you are I have a different judgment to our fellow simians....

What data? I didn’t mention any data… and you didn’t you either btw.

I posted some examples negating your absolute statements.

Do some ppl need animal products because of medical reasons? Peobably.

But claiming that humans needs animal products to live and thrive is quite the statement. Several national health organisation say otherwise. They say a plant based diet can be healthy with careful planning. Are they wrong as well?

Some other anecdotal evidence… myself. I’m on a animal product free diet and did some blood work… my doc says I should continue doing whatever I’m doing.

>But claiming that humans needs animal products to live and thrive is quite the statement. Several national health organisation say otherwise. They say a plant based diet can be healthy with careful planning. Are they wrong as well?

Yes they are. If consensus is your only way you determine if a piece of information is correct, they you and I can never agree.

So you think various health organizations, like the NHS, Harvard Health, USDA, WHO etc are wrong?

If you ignore scientific evidence or medical consensus then yes I agree - no point continuing this discussion.

>So you think various health organizations, like the NHS, Harvard Health, USDA, WHO etc are wrong?

Yep. though a broken clock is also correct twice a day, not sure what proportion of advise they give is wrong.

Like I said - no point in continuing discussions if you just dismiss medical facts that don't fit your narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com