Chiropractic Healthiness » Chiropractic » Best Vitamin Co.
Best Vitamin Co.
Question:
> > We run blood tests frequently to track nutrient levels-this is how I > know they are at least breaking down and getting to the blood > stream. Others never showed up on the tests. > Not all vitamins and minerals can be checked in this manner. For instance: > magnesium, niacin, phosphorus, selenium, B12, and several others will fail > to show up in blood tests, depending on how extensive the testing. > The next thing you have to do here, Eddie, is post why you think these have > succeeded where so many have failed. There is no demonstrated absorbability > difference between ’synthetic’ and ‘natural-sourced’ vitamins that I am aware > of. But I would like to know the rationale behind this claim, since that may > not be it.
The name is spelled EDIE, not EDDIE. The rationale behind this claim? I FEEL WONDERFUL for the first time in 20 years, the doctors are AMAZED at how quickly I have come around and I am in COMPLETE REMISSION of my disease. Obviously something is getting into my system that was never getting there before and the only thing we changed was the type of vitamin I am taking (whole food concentrate vs. synthetic). Isn’t it logical that what mother nature makes is better that what "science" creates in a test tube? Oh, why bother. You are obvoiously a very closed minded individual and unless you can do a double blind test to prove it to you, you’ll never listen. You have just won the dubious award of being added to my kill file since you never say anything worth looking at.
Response:
> Synthetic vs. natural is not the issue. 99.9% of all vitamins on the market > are synthetic and they absorb just fine. The few that are not synthetic are > derived from yeasts that have been feed synthetic vitamins. These products > are no longer allowed to be labelled as "food-grown."
Begging your pardon sir– Not ALL natural vitamins are yeasts fed synthetic vitamins. Ours come from whole food concentrates (i.e. we take what mother nature provides in grains, veggies, etc and concentrate them). My info is also free-I’d be happy to send you the info, I haven’t had time to upload it to a BBS yet.
Response:
|> > As far as the Consumer Reports article–they didn’t look at anything |> > other than drugstore brands. These are always synthetic because they |> > are cheap to produce. I have some information on synthetic vs. |> > natural supplements that may provide some guidance. |> |> Synthetic vs. natural is not the issue. 99.9% of all vitamins on the market |> are synthetic and they absorb just fine. The few that are not synthetic are |> derived from yeasts that have been feed synthetic vitamins. These products |> are no longer allowed to be labelled as "food-grown." |> |> The idea that vitamins should be natural is unscientific and misleading. If |> you have information on "natural" vitamins, let’s see it. |> |> People interested in more detail on this issue can post to this conference |> for a <free> response. |> I remember reading articles in Consumers Reports about vitamans. They DID look into brands commonly available at health food stores, and did comment on it. Paul, please know what you’re talking about before making such broad statements.
Response:
>Synthetic vs. natural is not the issue. 99.9% of all vitamins on the market >are synthetic and they absorb just fine. The few that are not synthetic are >derived from yeasts that have been feed synthetic vitamins. These products >are no longer allowed to be labelled as "food-grown." >People interested in more detail on this issue can post to this conference >for a <free> response.
Please do. Include full details. My interest in this concerns the path of synthesis (part of which may be biological), in its entirety. For instance a strict kosher Jew might have problems if pigs are involved in the process. So, I say there is a difference, even if it cannot be detected by chemical analysis. —
Response:
: In article <3163938749 : > : Begging your pardon sir– : Not ALL natural vitamins are yeasts fed synthetic vitamins. Ours come from ^^ : whole food concentrates (i.e. we take what mother nature provides in ^^ : grains, veggies, etc and concentrate them). : My info is also free-I’d be happy to send you the info, I haven’t had time : to upload it to a BBS yet. Are you implying that you make your own vitamins? Or do you sell them? Don’t send us the info, just post it.
Response:
As a personal trainer i have had to recommend supplements to my clients, I always highly recommend Twin Lab Products. They are the best overall nutritional products. The quality is excellent and the results are great. You may have to pay a little more but it is worth it. Another product that I swear by as far as a whole body nutritional supplement for body builders or any person looking to get into shape is a product named MET-RX. I suggest that you find whatever info. you can on this product from any health food store… Keep Fit…:)
Response:
> I remember reading articles in Consumers Reports about vitamans. > They DID look into brands commonly available at health food stores, > and did comment on it. > Paul, please know what you’re talking about before making such broad > statements.
000, how about reading the post and not assigning someone else’s post to me? My post was about "natural" vs. "synthetic." You are responding to something I haven’t addressed. I don’t know who you are, I have no idea of your background or credentials, so let’s not get buddy buddy here, especially when you put someone else’s words in my mouth.
Response:
> Please do. Include full details. > My interest in this concerns the path of synthesis (part of which > may be biological), in its entirety. For instance a strict kosher > Jew might have problems if pigs are involved in the process. So, I > say there is a difference, even if it cannot be detected by chemical > analysis.
A post to the conference should get a response. I was not offering to make that response myself.
Response:
. > Are you implying that you make your own vitamins? Or do you sell them?
Noe-Life Company of America makes them. I take them with wonderful results. I’ve tried (and wasted money) on a lot of vitamins and the Neo0Life ones are the only ones that my Dr. and I can noticably tell are getting to my blood stream (and cells). We run blood tests frequently to track nutrient levels-this is how I know they are at least breaking down and getting to the blood stream. Others never showed up on the tests. I have a medical problem that makes absorbing vitamins and minerals difficult, this is why I’ve invested so much time and effort into finding ones that work for me. As alwoys, your mileage may vary.
Response:
> : Not ALL natural vitamins are yeasts fed synthetic vitamins. Ours come from > ^^ > : whole food concentrates (i.e. we take what mother nature provides in > ^^ > : grains, veggies, etc and concentrate them). > : My info is also free-I’d be happy to send you the info, I haven’t had time > : to upload it to a BBS yet.
You misunderstand me. I am not offering to post some ad about vitamins. The original poster said that for a fee e-mailers could get a review of vitamin information. I said you can get the same online for free. Let’s leave the ads off the Internet, and especially out of this conference, which should be about ideas and issues, not money.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a point > >of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you > >but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the most > >expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money… > Does anyone have any thoughts on how important the form of a mineral is, > or any comments on the Consumer’s article? > Scott >Chelated minerals are absorbed more readily by the body than other forms >of minerals. >As far as the Consumer Reports article–they didn’t look at anything other >than drugstore brands. These are always synthetic because they are cheap >to produce. I have some information on synthetic vs. natural supplements >that may provide some guidance.
I’m not the least impressed by Consumers Reports on vitamins. I don’t believe that a cheap supermarket brand of a vitamin is of the same quality and usefullness in the body as something put out by Cardiovascular Research, or Douglas or Twinlab. Consumers only tested to see if the vitamins (synthetic, of course) were in the pills to the stated potency, they didn’t test to see how they were assimilated by the human body. I wouldn’t take WalMart vitamins on a bet. Let Consumers take them. Carol CompuServe 73044,1326 ** be released. Ghostbusters ** :
Response:
>FEEL WONDERFUL for the first time in 20 years, the doctors are AMAZED at >how quickly I have come around and I am in COMPLETE REMISSION of my >disease. Obviously something is getting into my system that was never
Edie: Your recent post suggested that you know you are absorbing the vitamins because your health is better. If you don’t mind me asking, what disease do you have that vitamins brought it into remission? Which vitamins did you take? Once you found a vitamin brand that your body could absorb, were the doctors surprised that your condition went into remission, or did they expect that? (That is, are vitamins an established treatment for your disease, or did your doctors laugh at your attempts to use nutritional therapy?) Scott
Response:
> You misunderstand me. I am not offering to post some ad about vitamins. The > original poster said that for a fee e-mailers could get a review of vitamin > information. I said you can get the same online for free. Let’s leave the ads > off the Internet, and especially out of this conference, which should be > about ideas and issues, not money.
Paul-I really think you need to take more time reading the content of messages before writing your responses. I was the original poster and stated that if they wanted my info on Natural vs Synthetic they can e-mail me and I’ll mail them the info. NEVER did I say I would charge for this. My knowledge and info is FREE to those who ask. Since I’ve not had time to type all this stuff into the computer, its a little hard to obtain it online for free. Geez!
Response:
>The name is spelled EDIE, not EDDIE. The rationale behind this claim? I >FEEL WONDERFUL for the first time in 20 years, the doctors are AMAZED at >how quickly I have come around and I am in COMPLETE REMISSION of my >disease.
See, Paul, I TOLD you Edie would have a rationale for her (?) claim. And you doubted it! Shame on you. >Isn’t it logical that what mother nature makes is better that what >"science" creates in a test tube?
See, doesn’t this make sense? This is like those "inherited" diseases not being touched by certain remedies. It just makes sense! Come on. Isn’t it logical? Natural is better, right. >Oh, why bother. You are obvoiously a very closed minded individual and >unless you can do a double blind test to prove it to you, you’ll never >listen. You have just won the dubious award of being added to my kill >file since you never say anything worth looking at.
Oh, Edie, you’ve got it! Paul is one of those hard science types. He won’t accept anything without the data. I get so sick of the way he posts reference after reference here with critiques and p-values and the like. hehehehehehehe
Response:
> We run blood tests frequently to track nutrient levels-this is how I > know they are at least breaking down and getting to the blood > stream. Others never showed up on the tests.
Not all vitamins and minerals can be checked in this manner. For instance: magnesium, niacin, phosphorus, selenium, B12, and several others will fail to show up in blood tests, depending on how extensive the testing. The next thing you have to do here, Eddie, is post why you think these have succeeded where so many have failed. There is no demonstrated absorbability difference between ’synthetic’ and ‘natural-sourced’ vitamins that I am aware of. But I would like to know the rationale behind this claim, since that may not be it.
Response:
>The next thing you have to do here, Eddie, is post why you think these have >succeeded where so many have failed. There is no demonstrated absorbability >difference between ’synthetic’ and ‘natural-sourced’ vitamins that I am aware >of. But I would like to know the rationale behind this claim, since that may >not be it.
Why Paul, Eddie thinks they’re better cause he’s seen them work thousands of times where other compounds have failed, there are 3 thousand years of compiled experience with "natural-sourced" vitamins, he’s heard of 10s of thousands of cases where folks at death’s door were miraculously improved by "natural sourced" vitamins, best of all they work for "inherited" diseases. Why else? Shame on you for asking for data, "demonstrated difference", "rationale". You’re starting to sound like your friend 000000-Admin. Maybe you’re the yin and the yang of the same guy!
Response:
Would like to have imput as to the pro’s and con’s of various vitamin peddlers. Who has a good reputation and who does not? —- ** Prime Time On-Line Atlanta’s Source for FULL INTERNET ** ** 1200-28.8 404-667-1081 FTP/TELNET/GOPHER 4.0 Gig On-Line **
Response:
: Would like to have imput as to the pro’s and con’s of : various vitamin peddlers. Who has a good reputation and : who does not? For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a point of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the most expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money… — | Mitch Regenbogen | | | Brooklyn, New York | |
Response:
Regenbogen) writes: >For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a
point of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the most expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money… For what it’s worth I’ve grown very suspicious of Consumers Retort over the years. Their ‘objectivity’ is suspect. They seem to pick Sears brands a little too often. And we won’t go into the sham retort on chiropractic. jim
Response:
Jim Mayes, DC: For what it’s worth I’ve grown very suspicious of Consumers Retort over the years. Their ‘objectivity’ is suspect. They seem to pick Sears brands a little too often. And we won’t go into the sham retort on chiropractic. Jim. I’m a chiropractor too and would like you to state exactly what you disagreed with about Consumer Report’s article on Chiropractic. Don’t just say, "It’s a sham"…make a list of all the things you think are untrue. When you say, "And we won’t [even] go into…" it sounds like you have more than a few objections so it should be easy to enumerate them. John Badanes, DC, L.Ac. [JB.]
Response:
> : Would like to have imput as to the pro’s and con’s of > : various vitamin peddlers. Who has a good reputation and > : who does not? > For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a point > of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you > but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the > most expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money…
No surprise there, Consumer Reports revels in this crap. There are significant differences in vitamin products on the <whole> market, but CR focuses on the big drugstore brands, which are indeed universally poor. Look for packing in glass, full disclosure, novel and innovative product design. Quality of tableting is an issue. Forms of the vitamins can make a difference, certainly. I personally like Country Life and Twinlabs, for tablets and capsules, respectively. – sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
Response:
>For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a point >of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you >but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the most >expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money…
I’ve only had a chance to skim the Consumer Reports article, but from what I’ve seen, it only discussed vitamins, not minerals. I’d be curious if Consumer Reports would also conclude that it doesn’t matter which brand of mineral you buy. The article did mention the problem of pills not dissolving in the body, and hence not being abosorbed. (They said that this problem has been solved.) However, they didn’t mention anything about whether the nutrient is in a form that the body can absorb. For all I know, maybe this isn’t a big deal with vitamins, but when I’ve asked my health food store on advice in choosing minerals, they’ve always steered me towards certain ones based on the compound the mineral was contained in. (You know, you never get pure calcium or magnesium, but always calcium-something or magnesium-something that the body supposed to break down to get the mineral.) Does anyone have any thoughts on how important the form of a mineral is, or any comments on the Consumer’s article? Scott
Response:
> >For what it’s worth, this month’s issue of Consumer Reports makes a point >of stating that it absolutely positively doesn’t matter which brand you >but — the cheapest had the same quality and same content as the most >expensive. I guess I’ve been wasting money… > Does anyone have any thoughts on how important the form of a mineral is, > or any comments on the Consumer’s article? > Scott
Chelated minerals are absorbed more readily by the body than other forms of minerals. As far as the Consumer Reports article–they didn’t look at anything other than drugstore brands. These are always synthetic because they are cheap to produce. I have some information on synthetic vs. natural supplements that may provide some guidance. Any interested parties can drop me an e-mail.
Response:
Call 1-800-715-0019.
Response:
> As far as the Consumer Reports article–they didn’t look at anything > other than drugstore brands. These are always synthetic because they > are cheap to produce. I have some information on synthetic vs. > natural supplements that may provide some guidance.
Synthetic vs. natural is not the issue. 99.9% of all vitamins on the market are synthetic and they absorb just fine. The few that are not synthetic are derived from yeasts that have been feed synthetic vitamins. These products are no longer allowed to be labelled as "food-grown." The idea that vitamins should be natural is unscientific and misleading. If you have information on "natural" vitamins, let’s see it. People interested in more detail on this issue can post to this conference for a <free> response.