Doesn't seem like that's quite the same thing.
Personally, I take omega 3, vitamin D (gelcaps, it's fat-soluble), and kelp (for iodine) daily. That article doesn't say much about those.
I doubt that those vitamins are doing you much harm, but I honestly doubt that you are getting much real benefit from them either (unless you have a real, medical deficiency). But hey, taking them probably makes you feel safer, so you'll likely keep taking them regardless.
Interestingly, the age of a person is usually the best indicator of which vitamins they will take - people often get snagged into some 'holy grail' vitamin (free radicals being the newest) and then continue to take them because accepting that what you've been paying for over years is a waste of money is very hard to take.
> I honestly doubt that you are getting much
> real benefit from them either (unless you have
> a real, medical deficiency)
And on the 'real, medical deficiency' front, there are many debates as to what optimum levels are for some vitamins and minerals. Nutrition is the one area where some things seem very unsettled (e.g. All fat is bad! No wait only some fat is bad! No wait eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat! etc). [ And even then a real, medical deficiency may just mean that your body is degrading vs. operating efficiently. E.g. maybe taking Vitamin X will help your body digest and absorb food better, but you don't need it to keep living so there is no real, medical deficiency. ]
[1] Used Portland as an example, because I remember reading about this.
"someone, somewhere at some time was pushing them as an amazing cure"
I've also heard a GP (who I personally respect) say they prescribe Vitamin D as a convenient placebo for common fatigue-type symptoms.
(http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins-minerals/Pages/Vitamin...)
That GP should be reported. They're not following NICE guidelines for CFS, and they are failing their patients. It's easy to mock people with chronic fatigue and laugh about sending them away with a placebo, but that's abuse and should be stopped. That GP clearly doesn't want to treat them, which isn't fine but understandable. But that's why we now have primary mental health teams to refer people onto.
(http://publications.nice.org.uk/chronic-fatigue-syndromemyal...)
Nobody was laughing about it or mocking: we were discussing medical ethics quite seriously, and the medical value of placebo.
As I understood, the GP only applied this to situations where by-the-book they would have to send people away unmedicated and dissatisfied.
Although you might reasonably disagree with their methods, the GP felt quite strongly about it: believing that showing care in such a simple, non-harmful way early led to fewer chronic cases.
I didn't state my reasons for taking them and you have no idea what they are. This is a strawman.
> one takes those vitamins because someone, somewhere at some time was pushing them as an amazing cure. A couple studies were done, data was likely cherry picked, and now one pays money to some company to give it to them. That company makes very sure that beneficial studies are done as often as possible.
I take Vitamin D personally because a blood test showed that I was Vitamin D deficient and my doctor recommended that I take 1000 I.U. of Vitamin D daily to bring myself up to a non-deficient state.
Why would somebody want to eat free radicals? Do you mean antioxidants, which are supposed to destroy free radicals?
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplem...
Particularly, it breaks each supplement down by effect, for example, it lists Antioxidants far negative for 'mortality' (per the article), but positively for 'infertility in men'. It also cites sources.
Perhaps, judging by the article, they should have a 'harmful' ranking as well.
By this chart, Vitamin D makes sense for 'general health' (I have gotten it recommended for immune system issues like allergies), and Omega 3 for 'heart disease' seem like winners. I didn't see Iodine on there.
The question of 'what supplement' seems incomplete without 'for what purpose'.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_goo...
There's also a difference between not being deficient in vitamin D, and having the optimal amount of vitamin D available. People tend to confuse the two, as if as soon as you aren't deficient you can't possibly improve on that.
Assuming anything meaningful happened there, that was almost certainly the magnesium. Magnesium is linked with sleep improvements (actually, literally today a Google Alerts told me about such an experiment: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703169/ ).
(Vitamin D, on the other hand, probably not so much since it sounds like you gave it to him in the evening, where, at least for me, vitamin D screws up my sleep http://www.gwern.net/Zeo#vitamin-d-at-night-hurts .)
Your site is amazing by the way.
When were you taking it?
i have ms and vitamin d is suspected to be important in reducing the chance of suffering from that disease (it's an immunomodulator - has some connection with your immune system - and ms is basically your immune system attacking your own nerves). other risk factors include being a woman, and having had glandular fever or chickenpox (or both). i am prescribed quite high doses (about double what i see as recommended for supplements). i understand that, along with the medication i take, it helps reduce further outbreaks.
i found it kind of weird that this kind of knowledge is still ongoing research. seems like the kind of thing people would have worked out by now.
anyway, consider getting a little sun each day (according to http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Summerhealth/Pages/vitamin-D-sunl... you don't need long), and maybe a supplement in winter, if you're in the north.
1) People born in northern latitude areas (europe, USA), who then move at a young age close to the equator.
2) People who live their whole lives in an area close to the equator
3) People who were born and raised in areas close to the equator then moved to northern latitudes in adulthood.
Compare to people who are more suspectible to MS:
1) People are born in areas close to the equator then move at an early age to northern latitudes
2) People who live their whole lives in northern latitudes
3) People who live their childhood in northern latitudes then move to the equator.
So there is a correlation between growing up, regardless of what happens in adulthood, near the equator (maybe from Vit D dosage) and having a lower risk for MS. Cool stuff.
Disclaimer: not able to watch the video
This can be verified with blood tests.
Vitamin D supplements (at normal daily doses) are recommended.
This is especially important for pregnant women and children under 5. Also for people with limited access to sun ('cultural dress' for example.)
http://www.thelocal.se/32862/20110328/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamin-d-a...
BTW, as you get older, your body loses the ability to convert sunlight to Vitamin D. Of course no one who reads HN would have this issue :-)
That little bit of meat and vegetables will contain vitamins.
Those vitamins are a crucial part of a normal diet.